I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.
Man's life can only be sustained through his work (his liberty), as he creates new products (property), which he trades with other men. This is how man sustains his life.
Thus, property is the result of man's work, and is also the reason for his work. As every trade is voluntary, it can be assumed that each party to the trade has improved his circumstances, or he wouldn't have chosen to take part in the trade. As millions of trades go on every day, people's lives are improved millions of times over, resulting in the great improvement in the human condition that history shows to be consequential to free markets.
You might enslave a man by taking away his liberty, but you will also enslave a man by taking the fruits of his labor. In the first case, you choose how he will give you all of his production. In the second case, he chooses how he will give you all of his production. Either way, he is a slave.
If someone attacks you, you may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. This is the law of the jungle. Any jury would acquit you for using deadly force in such circumstances.
Similarly, if someone attempts to take your liberty (say, by binding your hands and feet, and throwing you into the trunk of a car) then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, if the attacker is willing to tie you up and throw you into the trunk of a car, how could any reasonable person not be expected to also fear for their life in such circumstances?
Similarly, if someone attempts to take your property, then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, clearly this person is willing to use violent force against you, since otherwise no one would normally part with the fruits of their own labor. And since he is willing to use violent force, and indeed is threatening you with it, then you are in a state of war the same as if he had threatened your life or liberty.
Clearly we can see that any man has a right to use force to defend his life, his liberty, and his property.
And if a single man has a right to use force to defend life, liberty, and property, then it stands to reason that a group of men likewise have the right to band together and provide a common defense of life, liberty and property.
Thus government, when used solely to protect our rights, actually has a moral right to function: the same moral right that you have to defend yourself individually against threats or attack.
But whenever government is used to violate our life, liberty, or property, then it does not have a moral right, any more than an individual person would have a moral right to do those things.
This is why the US Constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of government. Democratic processes were strictly limited to the political realm, not the moral realm: no democratic process ever has the right to vote regarding people's lives, liberties, or property, any more than a democratic process has the right to commit genocide. No crime is "right" just because a majority wills it. Once democratic processes become a tool for subverting human rights, then we devolve into a system where "everybody is enslaved to everybody" and where no one's rights are respected anymore, because people no longer have any understanding of their rights, or of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment that brought those rights to our awareness in the first place.
