>>85931
This shows me you simply don't understand libertarians. To us, the outward act is often not as important as what happened before it. Call this our autism. Some muscled guy clubbing another dude and then throwing him out of a park will always initially evoke the same emotional reaction, but if you really want to judge what happened, you'll look into why he clubbed him. Then it becomes important whether the park was funded by holding a gun to everyones head and demanding a dollar from them, or whether someone used two years worth of his own income to do so.
To use another example, say you see a man tying a girl in a schoolgirl uniform up and slapping her face. To know whether that's in conformity with libertarian principles or not, you must know whether he just snatched a schoolgirl from the streets or whether that's his girlfriend who has given him informed consent. To say that consensual sex looks just like rape, therefore, both are equal, is obviously flawed, even absurd reasoning. Then why should it not matter whether you kick people from your own property, or from property that you never rightfully owned?
This shows that the pivoting point is the legitimacy of private property. All this talk of McStreets guarded by McGoons, and Private Kings taking rent from all Subjects without a Platinum Membership, is just a red herring. No libertarian is faced by it. No leftist or statist is ever convinced by it, his conviction is only reinforced, but on an emotional, not a rational level.