[Exnihilo]

Right! This is the author's entire point. The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals. So on the one hand you are against coercion, but on the other hand you are totally fine with coercion. You arbitrarily pick the state as your boogey man because that's "unconstitutional". So your beef isn't really with coercion at all.

[steve-b]

The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals.

Yes, and the Bush Administration refuses to define Israeli police and military actions against Palestinian criminals as "terrorism". In both cases, that definition would be quite convenient to certain political factions, but it must nevertheless be rejected because it simply cannot be squared with reality.

[OWK]

redistribution of wealth is not wrong: Libertarians argue as if it was self-evidently wrong, to steal the legitimately owned property of the rich, and give it to the poor. But it's not wrong, not wrong at all. Redistribution of wealth is inherently good: in fact, it is a moral obligation of the state. Excessive wealth is there to be redistributed: the only issue is what is 'excessive'. And of course this is coercion, and of course Bill Gates would scream 'Tyranny!' if the government gave his money to the poor of Africa. But it's still not wrong, not wrong at all.

THIS....?? This is the critique you think so highly of?

What a bunch of socialistic drivel.