It can absolutely be reasoned away, pretending it's a absolute fact is dogma, not logic. Look at any of the many shady things Nestle has done with water rights and tell me that's ethical.

Pretending that property rights somehow are more real than human need is an unethical action.

Re: Nestle - Corporatist structures twisting the state to do their bidding isn't property rights.

Property rights and human needs are both real things. I never argued otherwise.

The enforcement of property rights is literally the reason why the state was implemented. All property that one owns is theirs and not someone else's (or no one's) ultimately because of unjustifiable violence.

On this basis, property rights are not much more than a social construct and redistribution is not a problem if society deems that it is favorable to do so.

One can easily follow this all the way back to medieval Europe, at least in the Western world: early post-Roman European kings were just well-organized warlords, and for a very long time any idea of 'legitimate governance' was just a thin papering-over of the realpolitik involved in armies based on personal loyalty.

There is no natural right to private property. There is only something close to a right to your own labour.

You can make a claim to that spear, of course. It's the product of your labour, you would get to own it, and you made it with freely available resources. One would call this "personal property".

However, imagine this scenario. You and I get marooned on an unclaimed island. I claim the island before you get the opportunity. Because of my claim on this land, which now becomes my private property, I force you to give me that spear.

This is exactly what happened in all of the globe. People laid claim to land, resources and capital that they did not build, and this is precisely the base of all private property beforethen. If I were to get any object I own, I could trace my ownership of that object to someone that, at some point, violently decided that some land is theirs, and based on the idea that the land is theirs seized the product of the labour of various people who had no choice but to work it or die.

So, unless you agree that seizing land that was not yours violently is a reasonable way of generating ownership, you come to the conclusion that the ownership of essentially everything in our society is illegitimate, and can only be motivated for utilitarian reasons.

If you do, then you agree that I have a right to your spear :)

And if the island is resource poor and you quickly stockpile all of the good sticks and rocks for spear construction?

Is claiming property over things ethical? What inherent human right gives ownership of a resource to someone?

Traditionally it's been violence, but at some point(s) we decided that wasn't the best course of action.

The same can't be said of the government, of course.

Whatever the way in which something is obtained, it's possession does not seem to me to be an inherent right.

My question was aimed at the OP stating as fact that

>People protecting their property is an ethical action.

Which does not seem true to me.

If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.

If you constructed that spear with the only stick on the island, would you still hold that it is ethical for you to keep it for yourself?

Can you claim ownership of part (or the whole) of the island?