…As if we’ve never heard this one before. 
You could easily play the same game with statists. Call out their hypocrisy of wanting State control of (whatever they want state control of…e.g. health care) and then how they claim the State has no business in (whatever they think the State has no business in…e.g. gay marriage). If the state has business in one aspect, why not the rest? Is that not the same blanket they’re saddling libertarians with?
And then, this imaginary line they draw between what is justified aggression and what is oppression…it’s location is necessarily completely arbitrary. How do they justify not only the aggression itself, but also where they draw that line?
They can’t. It’s basically just whatever they feel. This is why they constantly have to use ambiguious fuzzy words like “reasonable amount”, “bad behavior”, “excessive wealth”, “lack of character”, “should have known better", “undue prosperity”, and the insufferable “fair share”, just to name a few.