You're correct. Rights do need to be backed up by force, and that force (and the power that lies behind it) often do tilt the balance toward their favor at the expense of others rights. I believe this is an inefficiency in the system (no tool can be 100% efficient), not a reason to discard the whole idea.

Sometimes legal property rights strip a people of their lands, and in most cases like that I think if property rights had been better defined the people in question wouldn't have lost their land.

I personally feel that the concept of might = right is erroneous, and more or less just excuses for violating someone's rights.

I'm not sure which 'system' your are referring to...  But there is a view that a 'right' is something that is defined by statute and nothing else: thsi certainly accords with your idea of 'system'.  So people lose their lands because either the 'system' is 'inefficient' , or badly worded, or of cousre where two systems are in conflict.  In these cases the common parlance equivalence of 'right' and 'morally correct' is lost, and as Patton implies in warfare no one has any rights except the victor.   An opposing view is that a 'right' is an essential condition of being human.  The Declaration of (American) Independence hints at this, although we are all left to consider just how broad a remit the 'unalienable' rights have  (they certainly did not cover native americans, slaves, and most modern day non-americans, for example).   

Tagging might = right as 'erroneous'  is not very explanatory.  It ceratinly isn't erroneous as a description of some current conflicts for example (if we trade on the equivocation of right as 'morally acceptable' and/or practical-efficient).   In what sense do you mean erroneous, then?    IF we take the second view of 'rights' above (unalienable conditions), then we still have the problem of the relationship to  power.....

I don't think one can rationally dispute the ownership of one's self as "property".

That being said, I don't see any grounds for transfering this de facto state of property ownership to another object - without the use of force or the aquicience of the collective will.

Ergo, property ownership (beyond that of the 'self') must require either a demonstration of force, or some permission of the collective.

I think distribution of group owned things has been mixed with how things come to be owned. How does the collective come to own everything? Locke offers solid argument against group ownership coming from God, but I'd guess that's not where you're coming from...

You've got it right.

The collective gets to own everything when it has the guns!  Thats the lesson from comrades Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Theory_of_value_and_property

Theory of value and property
Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labor.

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory.

Big surprise that Comrade Karl would critique government arbitrarily disposing of private property!

I'm not claiming right now that I have any logical proof of this. I simply say that Locke has none either and that the collective evrsion is more moral.

Like tadpol, I too am curious about the justification of 'collective' being "more moral" here.

The traditional Judeo-Christian definition of morality appears to be silent on the moral determination here.

Please be sure to identify the moral system you are using to make your conclusion in your response (for clarity sake).

And you honestly can't see how how contributing more but getting the same would lead to people intentionally underachieving?  Your socialism is the epitome of dumbing down a society.