While I agree with the general theme of this article (that coercion is inherent in policing and its aggressive manifestations stem from the fact that government is dependent on coercion for its existence), it weakens its own arguments through the use of terms whose definitions contradict the thesis of the article. For example, calling law enforcement an institution rather than a branch of the state efficaciously undermines the point that it is the state that is the direct source of the coercion, and not simply a society or organization which an anarcho-capitalist would have no qualms toward. It also further abstracts the actual aggression the state is responsible for, so that empirical evidence no longer has any utility in argumentation (the reason I used the term efficacious earlier). In other words, if you argue that something is institutionalized the violence is inherent and not actually visible and direct. This is obviously not the nature of law enforcement violence. Accordingly, the use of this term completely contradicts the a priori reasoning that is the foundation of anarcho-capitalism by assuming positive liberty (which requires real visible violence through state coercion) as a foundational requirement for all human life. Humans do not have basic needs that society is required to meet, because this requires real coercion against others to meet these needs for all life, which would contradict the thesis that law enforcement violence is wrong in the first place. Left libertarians need to either stop calling themselves anarcho-capitalists or give up the use of these terms which are contradictory to their arguments.