Meths

Under capitalism/libertarianism, we're all supposed to be able to live freely, nobody's rights are infringed and nobody can take my property. Socialism is criticised because it takes my property (through taxation) and gives it to people who don't deserve it (everybody else, through welfare/education/healthcare).

This is all fine and dandy and makes sense. Nobody does have a right to the fruits of my labour. However, what if they aren't actually the fruits of my labour? 

Our societies did not spring into existence yesterday. They've been established over many thousands of years. And not peacefully. They were founded upon war, bloodshed, theft and murder. Land was not divided up and given to people who worked for it, it was seized. If the initial divisions of land were not equal, nothing afterwards will be. Land was taken by the ruling classes and the general population was then required to work on it. You have no right to property that was stolen in the first place.

To make libertarianism a sound philosophy to base a society on, you'd have to go for some crazy purge where wealth and land was divided up equally and THEN introduce libertarianism. Otherwise you're just perpetuating a system that can never be equal or just.

As an example, The Duke of Westminster owns about 50 acres of Mayfair in London. This makes him one of the wealthiest property owners in the UK. He inherited it. What right does he have to his land? His ancestors seized it from some other suckers back in the day. How is his claim any more legitimate than mine if I was to march in there with some gunmen tomorrow and take it for myself? Stolen property is stolen property, regardless of how many hands it's gone through since the initial theft.

I've been thinking of this idea for a while and then I found out today that that bastard Marx had already written about it in Das Kapital. It's called the primitive accumulation of capital and it's a major problem for liberal economics.