See the first post for the new theme of this thread; otherwise, two things that are not up for discussion:
1) the Libertarian definition of "aggression": as I understand it, "aggression" in non-pacifist Libertarianism refers to violence that is not in self-defense. Such violence is 'coercion'. Violence that IS in self-defense is not aggression/coercion.
2) by extension, in non-anarchist Libertarianism, government violence is not necessarily 'aggression'. In other words, if Person A could use violence against Person B, and it would be self-defense, then the government can help Person A defend themselves, and that's still not aggression. That's just government-backed self-defense.
Also, threads about Libertarianism tend to attract snark and bad faith arguing. Please don't do that. That's why the scope was narrowed--I'm hoping this is a focused enough topic to keep things on track.
Note: this thread's scope has been narrowed significantly--sorry for the confusion/inconvenience! Details below:
Let's say that tomorrow, America just goes 100% Libertarian. Will that make the powerful & wealthy *more* powerful and wealthy, or less? Does their power depend on continued capture of the government's powers of violence and using them for coercion, or are the powerful & wealthy already so far ahead that it's too late to be saved by Libertarianism?
I think it might be interesting to look at that question through the lens of what we do with the massive resources now owned by the U.S. Government. What do we do with them? Just sell them off and share the profits equally per capita or with an eye towards economic equality? How do we spin off government owned schools? Do we have to get rid of corporations, because Libertarianism is about freedom for real people and not for fictions created by government laws? Things like that!