Not as if the point hasn't been made often by now, but repeating it may be of some benefit: Without a firm protection of the right to private property, the rights to freedom of speech, press, religious worship, etc., are under constant threat.
The most recent demonstration of this is happening in Argentina, although Venezuela has also served as a recent case in point. As reported by the BBC, "Argentina's government wins control of newsprint supplies, amid a long-running feud between the president and a major media group…" It appears that the legislature caved in to pressure from the president of Argentina and basically nationalized all the supplies that are needed to run an independent press. As the BBC put it, "The legislation, which passed in the lower house last week, says the production, sale and distribution of newsprint is of national interest."
Of course, even if true, nothing follows about how the government ought to wrest control of the "production, sale and distribution of newsprint." If anything, if it is true and "the production, sale and distribution of newsprint" is in the national interest – allowing that this means that it is generally an important part of the society – it is least secure when government takes control of these matters. The same principle holds for education. Its importance by no stretch of the imagination justifies placing it under government jurisdiction.
What too many folks do not grasp is that governments are agencies run by some members of a society and it is most unwise to put these members in control of nearly anything, let alone the dissemination of knowledge and information. If there is a solid enough constitution in place, firmly upheld, perhaps the protection of individual rights might be placed in the hands of the government, provided the government can be kept impartial as it adjudicates disputes, protects rights, etc. But that itself is called into serious question by examples such as the Argentinian case where instead of protecting property rights, and thus the right to freedom of the press, government is the main violator of them.
Ironically, it is those on the political left who are most hostile to private property rights. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels made this clear in The Communist Manifesto where they declared that the very first task of socialists is to abolish private property rights. Yet it is just such cantankerous folks as communists who most need the protection of their private property rights; otherwise their many opponents will have no trouble invading their spheres from which they are mounting their challenge to the status quo. (This itself suggests quite strongly that the Left's political viewpoint is quite confused!)
All this also calls to mind how fiercely some of the Left's most prominent platforms decry the claim that America is in any way exceptional. Yet it really is, as exemplified in the now sadly fading American tradition of serious respect and legal protection of the right to private property.
In its eagerness to undermine free-market capitalism the Left is willing to sacrifice its major bulwark against those who would oppress it. But it just will not work – without the protection of private property rights there is no freedom of the press and no effective political freedom either, the freedom needed to institute change in society's political institutions which the Left is so hell-bent on doing.
Of course, much of this is relatively novel in the annals of politics across human history and the globe. The more usual state of affairs is that which we now see in Argentina and many other countries where dissent is eagerly being suppressed by the thugs who rule. Perhaps in time the vitality of the right to private property for all kinds of human endeavors – economic, educational, religious, scientific, journalistic, etc. – will be widely recognized. But as with freedom on all fronts, that requires eternal vigilance.