The modern regulator views property rights as the relationship between a human being and the property he owns in a less than absolute way. He doesn't see an owner as having unlimited rights as a consequence of ownership. Instead, he sees ownership as involving a bundle of different rights and attempts to focus on the particular rights which might have to be modified in order to protect other values he deems to be more important.
For example, at one time the owner of real estate was thought to own the space above his land to the cosmos. Rightly or wrongly, the advent of aviation led us to modify the landowner's rights in that regard. Were those modifications a victory for "communism" or just a victory for progress and common sense? Everyone has their own opinion, I guess.
L(l)ibertarians hold that the only legitimate restriction on private property would be in using it to initiate force against another. For example, a legitimate restriction of owning a hammer is not using it to commit an unprovoked attack. If they go beyond that, by definition you are not describing a libertarian.
most of the "communists" agree that there are some limits to government.
Like what? From history's lessons we see communist governments do whatever they like.
Instead, he sees ownership as involving a bundle of different rights
Ok, aside from the owner's rights could you please describe the other rights relevant to smoking laws, who exactly holds them, where these rights are derived from and precisely how they are being violated by a voluntarily entered privately owned smoking establishment?