<p>“Laissez Faire is also the only moral economic system available - because it recognizes the fact the value for value qua man is the only way man’s freedom and constitutional rights can be preserved. At the end of every interference in the economy by the government is a gun. At the end of every free trade between two individuals is a handshake. Which do you prefer?”</p>
<p>I think I need to clarify: I agree with you 100% - free trade between individuals is preferable in every instance (superior) to government coercion. However, a few issues pertaining to property rights must be considered. First, “neighborhood effects”, also known as externalities. When these externalities are negative for 3rd parties, and devalue their property (whether this is land, the health of their bodies, etc.) the government - I believe - through a fair, even-handed legal system, is justified in protecting these 3rd parties. Now, there are all types of ways to do this, and the best are market-based (carbon markets are one example; also the “London congestion charge” ironically initiated by a Socialist mayor). Another issue where property rights come into play is intellectual property. Now, I believe that, although current U.S. patent law is too strict, especially in areas such as medicine, music, and text, there should be some acceptable level of protection that gives enough incentive for creation and innovation and allows profit potential for said creators and innovators (however, as Milton Friedman noted, there is no “proven optimal time” that patent rights and the like should be granted for). This is another example of government economic interference - preventing counterfeit, pirated, and stolen goods from being sold.</p>