Smores:

Empirical studies: I challenge you to provide any measurable evidence that Government intrusion into markets results in better economic growth than Laissez Faire. You made a claim. Defend your assertions. Counter with research.

I never made that particular claim. You're arguing with yourself. Also Capitalizing Excessively - a habit of True Believers, one that undermines your ethos.

The rest of your post is the internet equivalent of pamphleteering.

The definition of "inalienable" you provide contradicts itself. I won't bother repeating myself - just add that it's a useless term in a discussion of economics. It applies to freedom of conscience, and nothing more, in common western usage. Consider the Native American conception of land use (probably apocryphal, but illustrative nonetheless) - the right to use land is inalienable under that worldview. Thus land sales, and ownership of the produce of the land, are meaningless concepts. Surely that's not what you promote.

Private property was developed as a way to exert power over other humans, then an aid to defining justice, and eventually was recognized as a means to promote productivity. It's not a first principle, but a means to an end.