No Right is absolute, exclusive or inviolable. The Right of personal property, similarly, has to be perceived in the larger context of its assumed legitimacy. The Right of personal property should unite the principle of liberty with that of equality, and both with the principle of cooperation.

Correct Option (D)

The passage asserts that no right, including the right to personal property, is absolute or inviolable. It emphasizes that this right must be understood within a broader context and should integrate principles of liberty, equality, and cooperation. This perspective directly implies that the individual's right to acquire property cannot exist in isolation but must be balanced and harmonized with the rights and interests of others, aligning with a comprehensive understanding of economic justice.

Incorrect Options:

• Option (A) is incorrect because the passage explicitly states that "No Right is absolute, exclusive or inviolable," which contradicts the concept of a "Natural Right" often implying inherent and absolute status. Furthermore, the passage does not reference statutes or scriptures as the primary basis for property rights but rather social principles.
• Option (B) is incorrect as the passage does not characterize personal property as inherently a "theft" or an "instrument of exploitation." Instead, it advocates for the reconciliation of property rights with principles like equality and cooperation, suggesting a balanced approach rather than outright condemnation.
• Option (C) is incorrect because the passage argues that the right of personal property "should unite" with the principle of cooperation, not negate it. While property rights can have implications for distributive justice, the passage's central argument is for their integration with social principles, not their inherent violation or negation of cooperation.