b) If someone is free too coerce anyone he owns, and he can arbitrarily choose who he owns, then he is free to coerce everybody. It's a tautology, but not a very useful one.
b) The point is that the concept of property rights is mostly vacuous unless you specify which system of property rights you are speaking of. cia_plant was pointing out that what one person considers oppression, another might consider fair use of property. Therefore any state can be considered libertarian unless you specify restrictions on what counts as a valid system of property.
Since all people need to be cared for until a certain age, all people who survive past the first few days of their lives are born into coercion under a strict meaning of the word. Some would escape by living as hermits in desert land or remote islands that nobody cared to enforce law on. Hell - if you're going to be a pedant why restrict it to human coercion? The weather itself is a form of coercian. As are the laws of physics themselves.
Although in a strict sense you're right, I think you're wasting time. However, I have a morbid curiosity for some things and would be genuinely interested to learn what axe you're grinding.
Well - gravity.
I mistook your motive. I've read the thread a few more times and see you've been quite specific in your responses.
b) If the enforcement of property rights justifies coercion, then almost any kind of coercion can be justified if the prevailing property system is chosen correctly. For example, if a totalitarian state were to have a system where everything belongs to the state, including the citizens, then it would have the right to do whatever it wants with its property, and any assertion of personal freedoms would be theft.