(Original post by phawkins1988)
Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?
Well, (speaking for myself only) I don't believe in "the right to free speech" per se. I believe in people's ownership of themselves, and the associated property rights which come with that. To say that someone has the right to free speech is effectively meaningless - where do they have that right? Anywhere they like? My house, or yours? Instead, if you look at it in terms of property rights, it all makes sense - people have the right to do as they wish with their own property. So, because the action of me saying whatever I like on my own land uses only my property (namely myself and my property), I have a right to do it.
If, however, I am on someone else's property, I am only entitled to use it in a way which they have agreed in (implicitly or explicitly). Generally speaking then, it seems implicit that most people would not agree to have a Neo-Nazi on their property disseminating information they found offensive and so we'd be forced to conclude that the Nazi was infringing on people's rights by doing this.
If you want to read a bit more (put much better than I could) check out this piece from Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
where, among other things, he analyses the famous problem about whether people have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre: link
Also - do the libertarians here believe that all land (or virtually all, presumably even the minimalist State has to have some offices, and naturally offices have to be on some land) should be privately owned? I was rereading a paper today which discusses this with particular respect to the issue of homelessness. I might start a thread on it in the philosophy subforum in the next few days, but clearly there's no point if the libertarians here don't subscribe to that sort of libertarianism.
Personally I don't think there should even be a minimal state in the first place, so this question doesn't exactly keep me up at night. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking though - if I did grant that a minimal state should exist, I'd probably say that its offices should be considered private property, but private property of the state. I might be missing the point though, cos I don't really see a problem.