It always seems to me that the discussion proceeds from the the assumption that society merely consists of equal sized marbles in a bag (known as "individuals") aggregated by chance into functional groups known as "families" and in possession of various distinguising marks on the marble-glass known as "property".

This bears only the most tenuous resemblence to society as we actually find it. Consider, for example, the ficticious legal "persons" we call corporations and the "property" they have title to.

The property of Microsoft Inc. fits the same literal dictionary definition as my postage stamp of a lawn with its two bedroom house and my personal possessions down to my vintage underwear, but it clearly does not function in society in the same way. And "protecting" the one does not carry the same social meaning or results as "protecting" the other.

If society were simply an aggregation of relatively equivalent individuals distributed over a relatively level playing field (something like the beginning of a Monopoly game), the libertarian position would command my respect and, quite possibly, even my alliegience.

But society simply isn't like that and libertarianism is not so much in error as idealized rules for a game we are not playing.