Socialism, private property, and the "hard line"

Venezuelan hardliner María Corina Machado barred from public office

At a guess, they call her a "hard liner" because of this sort of thing, quoted in Wikipedia.

On 13 January 2012, during the annual State of the Nation Speech delivered by Chávez to the Venezuelan National Assembly, Machado confronted him about shortages of basic goods, crime, and nationalizations of basic industries. 

"How can you say that you protect private property when you have been expropriating small businesses; expropriating and not paying is stealing."

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says the following.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Revolutionary socialists universally and some who hold power with electoral legitimacy notoriously and on principle practice expropriation without compensation.

Socialist-sponsored land reform and redistribution programs have generally been uncompensated.

Likewise socialist-sponsored nationalization and socialization are universally, or all but, uncompensated public takeovers of private property.

The US government holds uncompensated takeovers to be contrary to established international law as well as unconstitutional in the US.

Libertarians and conservatives generally make no secret that they regard government in general as legitimate only as it honors and defends fundamental human rights including property rights - actual lawful property and not only property as acquired under some sort of ideal conditions - and that regime change is justified if government itself systematically and extensively violates human rights in general or in particular property rights.

Nor is it any secret that they regard uncompensated or even inadequately compensated expropriation as exactly such a violation.

Or that they either deny that the usual political rights associated with democracy are among those fundamental human rights or hold they are anyway of considerably less weight than the traditional Lockean list of rights to life, liberty, and property cited and enshrined in the US constitution.

Many on the left, and by no means only the radical left, reject these conservative/libertarian views asserting, defending, and prioritizing private property rights.

It is an interesting question whether and how far liberals, though they are more pro-capitalist and pro-market than even social democrats or democratic socialists, agree with those views.

PS.

It isn't just capitalism that distinguishes between those who control property and can dispose of it as they wish and those who don't and can't.

Absolutely any social order does this, including any version of socialism.

Any order thus empowers some and disempowers others.

If property is theft those who are without it under capitalism or without significant control over it under socialism are alike robbed.

Capitalism disperses this power widely and thus achieves greater empowerment of more people, with results trumpeted in many places such as The Constitution of Liberty.

Socialism concentrates it narrowly.

Comparing our actual experience of both, capitalism - including moderately mixed economies - is much superior to socialism in terms of average utility and usually also in terms of the fate of the worst off group, so far as application of that criterion is not so contentious as to be only imaginary.

Too, capitalism wins the palm for innovation running away.

Too, considering regimes better as they harm or even slaughter their own people less, again capitalist regimes win out by far over socialist ones, globally and historically.

All worth thinking about.