radman:
I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.
It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.
You have to pare things back to the bare bones of do most people feel morally wrong doing something.
If they don't then do not let somebody pass a law that makes that thing illegal.
By sticking to the principle of having laws that uphold moral views you will have good laws and avoid manipulation of the legal system for the benefit of a few.What is regarded as moral will change with time and will vary from place to place and laws must be adjusted accordingly.
I would suggest that you read Locke's Two Treatises of Government, he offers a clearer delivery of his argument than any I could hope to convey here. That said, he defines property as the product of one's labors... Given that definition, I can't think of any society in the history of the world that didn't believe (at least for those in power) that they have the right to their 'property', even the polynesian cultures you mention. While they did have a strong communal approach (as did many aboriginal cultures) to property, they still respected personal property and more importantly they had a belief that each individual earned their share of the communal property by their labors which they also contributed to others...
radman:
It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.
It is not only possible, but factual, that societies have decided that liberty is not a basic human right... Doesn't make it so. Ask any slave if their basic human rights were being violated 
I really do suggest reading Locke, he spends far more time and is more eloquent than I am elucidating the point.