just a little fun polemic. don't sweat it, nobody's actually offended by that and it gives you a pretty good idea of where he stands in the first sentence.

Meh. I read something like that, and it colors the whole piece for me. It's too easy, and it's a shame. He's an interesting writer.

anyway, by their own perceptions libertarians aren't tolerant of coercion by private entities. they probably have a different idea of what coercion means than you do (much of it may be legitimated as 'property' or 'self defense' or 'market forces'),

I do think it's more a point of legitimacy with libertarians, -that they feel that coercion by private entities allows for private avoidance, retribution, and negotiation, whereas they view the State to be an entity that does not allow for this.

One reason why I am not a libertarian, is that I see no meaningful difference in where coercive violence is founded in ideology. For me, the ends are as much a critical part of the equation as the means (which are an attempt at expression of the ideology). In short, private entities can be just as hurtful as the State. There are few social philosophies that can convince me that its ideological foundation will strongly correlate with the ends. Most important to me are 1) what do the ends look like? 2) how is the ideology expressed as the means to those ends?, and 3) how well-founded in common sense and historical record are those expressions? No point in discussing where to put the kitchen sink in a house of cards.