Ask yourself this question:  Is there anything that an individual may rightfully and properly do without asking permission of another, or require that another provide for him?

If there is such an action that can be properly undertaken, then that is a "right".  It will invariably relate to the control that an individual has and may exercise over himself or over his properties, properties which are merely the extensions of himself.

Next, ask youself this question: If I have to ask permission of another person before I can do as I please with myself or my property, where did that other person get the "right" to grant me permission over myself and what is mine?

There are persons espousing the argument that other people who believe in the moral concepts of private capitalism or private property, somehow believe that "property rights are more important than human rights".

This is nonsense.  The fact is that ALL rights are centered in the human individual.

Property has no rights at all.  The ownership of property is a relationship of an individual (a "human") over a piece of property.  Human beings MUST own property in order to survive.  Thus, the right of property ownership IS a "human right".

The individual who continues to insist that somehow "human rights" are greater than and have precedence over "property rights", is invariably seeking to argue that someone they define as being "in need", somehow has some kind of greater right or claim to the property owned by someone else, who the petitioner seeks to cast as a villain, and thereby justify the forcible confiscation, taking, and theft of that someone's property - often under the rubric of "social justice".