Right, the libertarian version would be Foxconn coming in and strong-arming people into doing what they want while the government does nothing.

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.

>Since there would be no government to enforce this right

What??? Libertarians in the US at least are merely Classical Liberals. You're thinking of some sort of crazy Laissez-faire anarchist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_Stat...