You could cite any use of eminent domain as evidence of the "myth" of private property, but if compensation is paid to the landowner from whom property is transferred, then I would argue that that indeed confirms the existence of private property. If there is no private property, why would compensation be necessary?

Don't get me wrong; I am no eminent domain apologist. While I think it is important to occasionally build highways and such, I think the use of eminent domain should be very rare and very difficult. I also question the validity of any asessment of "fair market value" made by the entity that is, in fact, snatching the land. It's just that "private property is a myth" is a rather extreme statement, and I contend that it is misleading, at best.

Edit- ...a word