A Bit of a Sputter in the Revolution, Folks. Nothing to See Here!

Man, so much happens while I'm at work. Wow, that's a dumb statement.
So, today, the Students for a Democratic Society (which has a very storied history) stormed the Cato Institute's offices in DC to protest the construction of I-69, otherwise known as an expansion of the NAFTA Superhighway. I swear, I'm not crazy, that's just what a lot of people call it.

If you put a tinfoil hat in the microwave, it still catches fire. Just sayin'.

Anyway, this is an excruciatingly disgusting exercise in mobs being shitty mobs and private property being destroyed, which is not libertarian at all. No matter how great your aims are, unless someone is being deprived of life or liberty against his will, how can you justify such an incredible act of coercion? Because a think-tank merely supports the idea? As libertarians we value very strongly and sincerely the old addage (paraphrased) "I find your views revolting, but I will die to defend them", do we not? Even if the specter of a political party bandying about the name (and certainly there is no unitary definition of "libertarian") has come crashing down, there is nothing good that can come of supporting the violent destruction of property because someone disagrees with you.

Am I missing the point somehow?

From Brian Doherty's excellent Radicals for Capitalism: "But were they advancing libertarianism while reveling in the dark comedy of mad communist faction and treachery?". The preceding passage comes from the beginning of a long section about Students for a Democratic Society, which was at once an anarcho-capitalist, Maoist and even (!) early neoconservative amalgamation in the late `60s.This relates well to the kind of support I saw among many libs for this scene today. Riots are sexy, yes, but they are inherently immoral unless they are defending the rights of another against coercion or fraud. Jesus H. Christ on a Melting Pogostick. I do think that smashing the State is extremely important, but not at the cost of one of the greatest guarantors of freedom: private property rights. Libertarianism is revolutionary but it must come about as an evolutionary change, id est, that it is not the same violent, bloody revolition of Pol Pot or V. Lenin, but a peaceful example of human progress.
Fuck me, I'm an idealist.

Again, am I wrong? Someone school me.

Links inspiring my canned rage tonight: reason. LRC and originating here