(Return to main path)

Libertarians sometimes talk as though without super-strong property rights all is lost. I don't think that's true; and I think there are lots of examples around the world that prove that it isn't true. Here in the United States, for example, property is much more regulated than it was 100 years ago. But during the same period our right to free speech has been expanded.

If we don't have libertarian property rights, does that mean that the government can do anything it wants? Of course not. There are lots of moral and prudential reasons to limit what government does and to define and regulate property in some ways rather than in others. 

What it does mean, I think, is that the natural rights that people have in a hypothetical state of nature have no real implications for what we do today in our society.