Tom Knapp, the Platform is obviously talking about redistribution of wealth for the purpose of adjusting the relative or absolute levels of wealth or income of the people taken from and given to. It's not a competent reading to take that clause as opposing all taxation. You can pretend all you want that there's no relevant difference between tax dollars funding courts and tax dollars funding bailouts, but that pretense can advance your case only in the eyes of simpletons. These are also the only people who would not notice you ducking my point that your reading would take the LP Platform as opposing all government efforts to "redistribute" stolen property back to its rightful owner.
I'll take your word for it that anarcholibertarians outside of the orbit of the LP's anarchist wing are more realistic about how well we can expect protection markets to work in the absence of the State. If any of them have built -- or even have heard of -- a protection market operating on a significant scale in the way the LP's anarchists assure us would happen without a State, I'd love to hear about it.
Paulie, you can file that gem of Sipos wit under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doth_protest_too_much.
I agree it's always wrong to tax anyone's labor, peaceful production, or voluntary exchanges, but it's equally wrong for people not to be charged when they monopolize, pollute, deplete, or congest the natural commons. Your war cry should not be "no taxes!", it should be "no stinking taxes!". Fred Foldvary explains the difference at http://www.progress.org/2004/fold352.htm.