>We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
>We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
>Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
>We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
>Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
- The American Libertarian Party Statement of Principles
Depends which Libertarian you talk to, there are left wingers who are opposed to private property altogether and on the other side there are the ones that think the right of private property is one of the greatest goods.
Since there would be no government to enforce this right, the latter category is strongly in favor of the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms alone isn't sufficient to maintain the right of private property, since it means that anyone who's weaker than the locally strongest group of armed men de facto doesn't have any rights at all.
I can't possibly imagine how the right to bear arms could prevent Foxconn from taking their land, as Foxconn could definitely afford to violently remove anyone resisting, no matter how much arms they could realistically have; and it would be the cost-efficient (and thus preferrable) way to solve this issue - e.g. as an alternative of offering $50000/acre for 420 acres, you can hire a lot of mercenaries with heavy hardware for half that amount and simply take the land for free.
