Consider the possibility that good and evil are not real, or objective. They a manufactured description of what is effective in a social group being labeled "good" and what is ineffective "evil". Extend that to the ideas of property as most christians would see property. It is evil to take what is not yours, be it land, items, money, life, time etc. But these same people that currently own property, either stole it by force or purchased it from some one who did (go back far enough in time). Now how is it good to buy property that was once stolen? Lets go back to your original question, those in power, the owners of property would want to make sure those that did not own property would not want to take it for themselves. So the social good is to respect the property of others, and bad would be to take the property by force or otherwise theft. This works out really well for the existing property owners does it not? Does that mean its good? Back to my original point, socially speaking, the idea of property generally stabilizes groups of people to settle and work the land in an organised fashion that brings wealth to property owners and stability to everyone else. It was far more effective than civilizations that had the idea that the world belongs to everyone, and we are but a part of it... etc apparently their systems to assess what was good and evil were not as effective in the long run.