First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into.

Second, if the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents (homesteading natural resources).

>without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible.

Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. Unless you define economic activity to mean "trade within a property system" in which case it's a meaningless tautology.

> Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into.

That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?) I prefer to define my morality in terms of people not property.

>But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents

By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.

Again, I'm not saying Communism is good, I just object to the way you're arguing that the problem is breaking some arbitrary principles you like, rather than the very real suffering it caused.

>Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity.

There has never been an economic system that has has zero defence for private property rights (in the abstract sense of one having exclusive rights to that which they appropriate from the natural world or receive from another legitimate owner). The soviet union had small privately owned farms. North Korea has black markets that are widely tolerated by authorities. But even at a more basic level, having an exclusive right to the food that the state gives you is an exercise of private property rights. Economic existence would not be possible with zero observance of economic independence between individuals.

>That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?)

I see it in an opposite way. I see property as really our own person. I use the term 'property' because that is better understood. But morally, I think it's more appropriate to see the things we own as an extension of our person, and not as a separate class of matter we call property.

>By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people.

Withholding resources you created through your own effort, or acquired through private trade trade, is self-defense in my opinion. I think this is common sense and consistent with how we commonly define rights.