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.