I think there are also quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality, and would prefer that it be done in a market compatible way, instead of via government services.
That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property rights.
The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to lead to much more sensible arguments.
Well I realise I'm biased, but the libertarians I respect tend more towards "market freedom as the null hypothesis" rather than the ideological extremes that lead to rhetorical nonsense like "tax is theft" and "property rights can be derived from non-aggression", or my personal favourite "violent coercion is bad (unless it's used to enforce property rights, that doesn't count)".
"...what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are...One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim."
For example, driving a car can be aggression, depending on whether I have property rights to that car or not.
I'd need to see the context, but this seems even more ridiculous than calling tax theft. Taxation just moves things around, it doesn't destroy anything. (It might cause destruction due to inefficiency, but that's a separate argument.)
>Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non-aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights.
Well this is more consistent, but I still consider that a fairly ridiculous definition of aggression. Most people would consider aggression to mean actual violence (or threats thereof) and nothing else. Using resources outside the constraints of society's property system (i.e. theft) might be considered immoral, but I wouldn't call that aggression.
Defining aggression to include theft just seems like a rhetorical trick to avoid explaining the immorality of theft itself (if it's called aggression it must be bad right?)
I don't think that officially says the libertarian party supports it. Just that it may be compatible with their principles. I'm quite certain many libertarians would not go along with that at all.
This isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy, because parties do have official, stated platforms. And to my knowledge, this is not part of the Libertarian party platform.
Being able to find some members of the party who support an idea is not the same as saying that "many members" support it. And frankly, I'd be very skeptical of the notion that this idea has widespread support within the Libertarian party, given the rest of their platform and values.
