Ah, and here we see that there is not just one set of “libertarian principles,” but rather multiple competing ones
For example: Free speech. That’s a cherished libertarian principle. And so is private property.
But what meaning does the private ownership of property have, if strangers are free to break in and stage a protest inside your own home, and post their own political signs in your windows and on your yard? Clearly, not much. If we choose a regime of maximum “free speech,” then they would, in fact, be allowed to do that.
If we instead choose a regime of maximum property rights, then they would have no ability to speak on your property by commandeering your space and tools. And as a necessary corollary: they might not ultimately have the right to speak on *anyone’s* property but their own (assume this is an anarcho-capitalist regime with 100% private ownership and no public squares whatsoever). But then how would citizens realistically publish their political speech to the broader world, especially if they are from a poorer background and don’t own any property to begin with?
Aye, there’s the rub —
