The party's treasurer ona subject dear to most libertarian hearts, and the violations of them so dear to Government hearts.
Most grievous recent violation worldwide is Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe. Confiscation used as a political tool. The kind of blatant confiscation now the exception around the world, rather than the rule. [Telecom, anyone?]
The dire consequences ar obvious even to idiots. So now governments prefer partial confiscation, eg, Morales's partial confiscation of oil fields. Voluntarily. "Agree," he said, "or we'll throw you out anyway." [Telecom, anyone?]
Venezuela, Ecuador have followed suit. Sending troops to the oil fields was argued as "Bolivians taking back their own fields." Morales argued full nationalisation woudl hoever deprive Blivians of the necessary expertise in oil exraction and production.
Closer to home, Telecom has had about $3 billion wiped off its value in recent weeks by government attack. 'Unbundling.' 'Voluntary' separation. Oversight by govt of all commercial contracts.
Vodaphone too is being told it has been "too successful," and is being readied for attack by government. Woosh is having it radio spectrum threatened (by govt) to be sold from under its feet.
Why is this happening?
Socialists are becoming smarter. Post-Berlin Wall collapse, even socialists have realised socialism doesn't work. So they wish to keep the facade of private property, while controlling the production.
Too, the government can take a 'hands-off' all-care-and-no-responsibility approach if they don't completely nationalise.
So why are businesses accepting this? Why don't they rear up in response? Or shrug?
Only shareholders can do that. CEO's are obliged [says Nik] to keep producing in whatever regime they find themselves in. It is up to the shareholders to rear up and take action. And it is here that Libertarianz and libertarian arguments can perhaps have their greatest success. Both economic and moral arguments.