[alecbenzer]

> violence (libertarian definition of)

As I said, this is not a special definition of violence.

> Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private property rights, but not to protect public property rights?

This follows from the libertarian view of rights. People own themselves and the product of their labor and have rights to trade voluntarily. Public property rights (not sure exactly what you're referring to by that, but guessing) tend to conflict with private property rights.

> It's not actually freedom for everyone;

Whether or not what follows this is relevant/worth discussing, I'm not sure what any of it has to do with libertarianism not being freedom for everyone. From a glance it sounds like a mix of interesting (but common) discussion points and straw-men. I'll respond if I have some time later.

[eevilspock]

Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[1][2] and Georgists[3].

The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

If as a libertarian you cannot concede these points, we cannot have an intellectually honest discussion of what a libertarian world would be like.

-

[1] http://geolib.com/welcome.html

[2] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632

[3] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...

[alecbenzer]

> Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them.

Can you elaborate on this? Ownership is based on both owning the product of your labor and the ability/right to trade property.

> Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense

I think there are a wide range of views on this among people who call themselves libertarians. A popular view is homesteading, which says that you own land once you improve it/mix your labor with it. I think there's some subtle variations in the view with respect to things like whether you own the land itself or just the improvements to it or things like that. Personally I agree that land isn't really something that can be owned. Constructed houses and the like can be owned and people can have rights to these houses but not to the land itself.

> The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying its antithetical to free market principles to own anything indefinitely? Or just land?