True, but they also don't have a moral right to violate my rights.
If the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But thanks to "social democracy" (demagogic democracy), the government has become the primary instrument by which people aggressively seize the property of others.
>If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident.
I disagree that most people disagree with me. Most people do not consider the steps involved in money that someone earns going into their own bank account thanks to government intervention.
If they did consider it, I believe it would be self-evident to most what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights.
So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them?
Yes, though I don't consider it preaching. I consider it informing.
Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. Imagine the value of your property rights, if neither law nor law enforcement would protect it.
>it's self-evident
If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident. No amount of sidestepping arguments of others and continued preaching is going to convince others. Essentially you are just stating your ideology and calling it self evident.
This is like abortion issue where minority of people asserts that fetus has rights but majority don't see it.