The two primary underlying ideals of modern Libertarianism, according to both Murray Rothbard And Robert Nozick, consists of non-aggression against other people, and the sanctity of private property and its transference. (Murray N. Rothbard: For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York, 1973; and The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York, 1982,1988. Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, Utopia, Basic Books, New York, 1974.) While these may seem like reasonable and even desirable ideas, the first is an unreal utopian ideal, while the second has no basis in the underlying history of English Common Law, or American jurisprudence.
The very nature of capitalism and its initial inherent competition is aggressiveness; and the elimination of your competition, as Kenneth Lux pointed out in Adam Smith's Mistake, is the laissez-faire capitalist's ultimate goal . All laissez-faire capitalism requires the undercutting and elimination of competition until some sort of meta-stable oligopoly is achieved by two or three colluding competitors, or a complete monopoly comes into existence.
A Delusion of "Private" Property
"Private" property is, with regards to real estate (including mineral, timber, and water rights, as well as their transference), a misnomer. The disposition of private real estate has always been limited by the needs of the sovereign, even if that sovereign is the nation's people as a whole, i.e., "We the People." This is the legal and factual basis for eminent domain, zoning laws, and property taxes: land is granted by the sovereign people to the individual/business for his/its long-term use and conditional "ownership." Those conditions include zoning laws and payment of property taxes, as well as "good behavior" in its use. Transference is limited by inheritance and other laws. Property taxes are in reality nothing more than the ongoing payments of rental to the government. Eminent domain represents the government power to break the "lease." To look at real estate ownership any other way is simply deluding one's self.
Libertarians and conservatives do not like this fact, and object strenuously to being reminded of this fact by denying it. Look at what Rothbard and Nozick say above: Libertarianism's ideals are " non-aggression against other people, and the sanctity of private property and its transference." These Utopian concepts are every bit as unrealistic as Karl Marx's stateless, classless, moneyless, wageless society. So the very foundation of Rothbard and Nozick's ideal of Libertarianism is founded on a pair of false premises.
Libertarians (and most conservatives) believe that somehow land, and its continued ownership, is some sort of absolute right, like Freedom of Speech, of the Press, of Conscience, and of being secure in our possessions and our papers, as long as we do not abuse that right. But like most of the unpleasant truths in life under America's Constitution, they always forget those important conditional clauses in the Fifth Amendment, "without just compensation," and "without due process of law." Those two clauses maintain the People's sovereign right to violate the privacy or take back the land from the "owner," whenever the People's representatives (the government) has determined it to be in the People's best interest.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
