(Click here to continue on the main path)

Don't you see where this sort of argument is going?

Once you create a strong government with the right to define the rights of property in a way that serves the "common good" or maximizes the welfare of the greatest number of people, there are no internal limits on what it can do.

If you're lucky, there will be considerable political opposition to the expansion of government power and it will be held back. But you may not be that lucky. Besides, in principle there is no limit on what it can do.

If you are going to use some sort of obligation to the common good or to the greatest number as a justification for the modern welfare state, there is virtually no limit on what the government can do with anyone's property.

For me, that's unacceptable. The beauty of libertarianism is that it does provide principled limits on government, not just practical political opposition.

You can say that what the government does is acceptable because it is "legitimate." My answer is that a government without some internal, principled limits on what it can do is never legitimate.