This section is a work in progress that requires expansion.

Eminent domain is the process by which government seizes private property for "public use" (often with a requirement by government to honor some kind of payment or "just compensation" to the former owner). While many libertarians might argue that eminent domain is a required function that even the most limited government must utilize, by nature eminent domain is contrary to the libertarian ideology of governmental non-intervention and non-coercion. Thus, libertarians advocate strict limitations on eminent domain practices, and in some cases, outright abolition of them.

The idea of libertarian government has strong roots in the principles behind private property and common law. On the issue of eminent domain, historical private property claims and common law diverge. Free market theory suggests it is vitally important to prevent government from taking private property coercively under any circumstance (be it through taxation, seizure, or any other practice) as each intervention carries with it a host of negative side-effects. Likewise, history has shown that the first step to infringing on the liberties of any population requires government expanding its power to take property. Yet in common law, eminent domain has been a longstanding legal institution, predating the United States government by several hundred years. Thus, advocates of limited government are stuck with a legal process that is contrary to their interests but considered by many to be a vital and legitimate process of government.

Modern eminent domain practices have evolved far beyond merely seizing land for government buildings, public roadways, and military installations. As the government has expanded in authority from the local to federal level, eminent domain seizures have been put into practice for recovery of "blighted" areas of cities (urban redevelopment and "beautification"), development of public transportation/utilities, and the "preservation" of natural resources. This broader application of the concept of taking for "public use" winds up involving a lot of private parties, and the legal outcome of this can range from purely socialistic redistribution (as seen in the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff), to the taking of land from lower income individuals/businesses to give it to large private corporations (as seen in any number of city development projects to build malls or other places of commerce). This system is seen as easily corruptable by most libertarians, who criticize the system for not putting any restrictions on these growing definitions of "public use" and allowing "public use" to trump inherent rights citizens have.