There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.
For the state to enforce a citizen's philanthropic right to some stuff, the have to dispossess someone else of it - after all, the state can't produce anything, it can only expropriate what's been produced.
One can only dream of a time and place where government is only funded by a strict land-value tax, though...
Likewise, in a contract republic (or a charter city) individuals will agree to a neutral third party to arbitrate between them if they ever have a disagreement. This can be anyone from a spiritual authority they both respect, an authority in their industry, or a private court that's built a reputation for fairness, promising to pay the private court a percentage of any arbitration settlement they bring before it.
And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party. In a contract republic, individuals will be free to have their case judged by any judge, as long as both parties agree beforehand.
Opening the justice market will make sure crime gets punished, expedite justice, and reduce its cost.
If, instead of studying libertarian theory, you study history deeply, you’ll find that there is no magical distinction between private actors and government, and that when you rely on non-governmental actors to provide things like defense without a more powerful government to constrain them, that positions allows them to become a government.
> And if the court as much as makes one unfair ruling, it will drive away new business from parties who want a neutral third party.
No one wants a neutral third party, everyone wants someone that is biased towards them but which the opposing party can be conned into believing is not.
Neutral is just what you would get, were such a market viable, when both sides happen to have equal success. (Which outside of naive assumptions about perfect information, is unlikely to be normal in practice.)
> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Read about the recent Chilean constitution reform for what happens when people try to write a constitution based on things that would be nice to have, without seriously considering all of the nth-degree complexities that would result if those nice things were to actually be put into reality with the might of the state.
I understand wanting to protect Hawaii's heritage, etc. but landowners should be free to sell the property to whosoever they deem fit, at whatever price.
This, too, is a policy decision, and fixing this one is both easier and would result in a more sustainable long-term wealth growth, compared to the state forcing the direction of the "surplus wealth" of economic endeavors.
[0]: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/...
[1]: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawai...
(I too can make bald, sweeping statements without any justification or thought to reality, based purely on my gut feeling and predisposed ideology).