Quote Originally Posted by Throbert McGee View Post
They're both grammatical, but the emphases are different. "Universal values" implies (to me) that everyone everywhere accepts these values; "universally valuable" implies (to me) that the values have some inherent positive worth, and that everyone everywhere OUGHT to accept them. In other words, North Korean ideology does not accept private property as something good, but the libertarian assumption is that the North Koreans would be vastly better off if their society DID recognize private-property rights, at least to some degree.

That's a fair point. But (except among radical libertarians), saying that private-property rights ought to be regulated and restricted to some degree by the government is different from claiming that private-property as a concept has no inherent positive value for human well-being. (The radicals claim that restricting private-property rights to ANY degree is tantamount to denying them -- thus the cliche "Taxation is theft".) On the other hand, it's a general assumption of libertarians (not just the radicals) that such rights as freedom of religion, speech, and the press can all be logically derived from and protected by an underlying respect for private property.
Look, the majority of people in the West (I do not know how in the US, but certainly in the western Europe) DO NOT have private property in the same meaning as it was understood in the USSR. What they have is what the USSR would call "personal property". The majority of the people are employed in any country, not the business owners, and as such they have no private property. That means that only a minority of population in any country enjoys the private property rights, even in the west.