You will need to search long and hard to find a stronger supporter of private property rights than I. Yet I do not believe that any theory of private property rights can serve as a complete theory of morality. Many libertarians have made themselves look silly in the attempt to force every moral question and answer to fit within the scope of this Procrustean bed. There is more to life than property rights, and more to morality than strict adherence to the Non-aggression Principle. Libertarians would also do well to abandon their quest to derive all just property rights from a Lockean homesteading source. For one thing, it’s completely impractical. In my view, the concept of property rights as evolved conventions, a la Anthony de Jasay, makes more sense and fits the whole of reality more closely.
While it’s a caricature to say that what progressives would not forbid, they would make mandatory, they show a pattern of using force to ban what they don’t like and of mandating what they do. If you think that sounds illiberal, you’re right. Progressivism isn’t liberalism, especially of the classical variety. But even the watered-down liberalism of campus radicals of the 1960s paid more heed to the principle of tolerance than progressives today do.