I've said it before and I'll say it again: if something doesn't fit the minimum definition, then it isn't the thing being discussed. No matter how much someone might invoke the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to try to make you ashamed of noticing.
Ducks are not mammals, even if one type of mammal has a bill and lays eggs.
A knife is not a dill pickle, even though I can imagine ways to make a knife out of a dill pickle.
And people who don't at least reject the initiation of force (more generally: archation) are not libertarians.
This includes those initiations of force and property rights violations they really like and support. Things like "taxes", "tax farm borders", and other property violations; arrests, imprisonment, and other forms of aggression.
They might be really close to being a libertarian in most ways, but just like an ichthyosaur was really close to being a dolphin in a lot of ways, the differences blow the comparison to pieces. The differences break the definition.
Yes, I know recognizing this is intolerant of me. I'm not saying I can't work with them where we agree, even while pointing out why they aren't what they claim to be.
