You misunderstand the concept of property rights. Libertarians aren’t defined as people who believe in property rights; all political philosophies have property rights. All of them. Even the ones so stupid as to say they don’t have property rights. They have the exact same concept, but they just use a different word… and if semantics changed meaning then I really would be rich, handsome and immortal by now.

The only issue open for disagreement is how property rights should be transferred. Broadly speaking, there are two options — voluntary and involuntary. Libertarians are those people who have a strong preference for voluntary behaviour.

The difference between “state power” and “private power” is that state power comes through initiating force (ie it’s involuntary) while private power can only be achieved through influence (ie it’s voluntary). Note that I’m not saying all force is bad and all influence is good. Perhaps some violence is good sometimes if the consequences are worth it… and some influence can be bad if people are too naive. But this distinction is hugely important, and I think violence is worse than influence.

Finally, the “freedom to” concept is deeply flawed. It does not mean “freedom to do things”. The original “freedom from” concept already allows you to do anything you like, so long as it’s voluntary.

More correctly (and dramatically) explained, the concept means “freedom to initiative violence and force involuntary outcomes”. Yes, it might be good. But I think the language borders on being dishonest when they try to imply that such a “freedom” (sic) is part of the freedom of self-ownership and voluntary human interaction.

At it’s core, libertarianism is this… each human owns themselves and consequently the best way to interact with another human is voluntarily (except in extreme circumstances). Everything else flows logically from that starting point.