Indeed, Murray Rothbard, who, despite him appearing in the "gallery" of heros along the top of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left site, most people would not usually regard as being left-libertarian, goes into great detail in his "Ethics of Liberty" in exploring ways in which such "unjust" property might be released to be re-homesteaded and so achieve an initial "just" distribution of property at the start of an anarchist society.
This is particularly important in a UK context. Obo, I believe, glosses over this too easily when he says that redistributing unjustly acquired property would be too difficult to bother with. Rothbard believes that, aside from actually state-owned property and that owned by privileged clients of the state, such as industries who rely predominantly or solely on state distributed largesse, there would not be much need for such redistribution of private property in the US, but acknowledges that the situation is different in countries with a long history of feudalistic ownership, which would, in my opinion, include the UK.
So, the BNP's "true Britons" would be entitled to the lion's share of any such wealth redistribution, because they were the most dispossessed people.
Really, I can't see how any such scheme would work with absolute fairness. The vagaries of history would inevitably mean some practically impossible maths would be required.
And really, where do we draw the line? 1820? 1760? 1066? 43? 2000BC? How do you even track stuff back that far?
What about people of the "correct" British ancestry who have emigrated? Or those who have children born elsewhere who have come to live here?
There are so many arbitrary decisions that have to be made that it can never be entirely "fair".
And then, of course, we have the question of who gets to make these arbitrary decisions. Who gets to make them? Who gets to decide who gets to make them? Who gets to decide who gets to decide to make them? (That's not a fatuous question, by the way.)
So, yes, I do believe in some redistribution, at least at the point we begin an anarchist society, in order to redress historical inequities that have resulted in a great deal of unjustly acquired property, but I don't believe that that necessarily makes me a "left-libertarian". I do believe that unreproduceable goods that can be monopolised pose a problem in any system of social order (if anarchism can be described as a "system"!) but that in a genuinely freed market ways will be found through economic incentives to address these problems.
Unless you can somehow convince me that every single landowner in the UK will voluntarily accede to this program of redistribution, you are definitely applying coercion. Which is not libertarian.
Hence, while you may be of the left, you are not a left libertarian.
Update: Jock left this on twitter:
not at all. Nothing is coercive. More like post-revolution "free for all" as people assert their claim w/o land rgy
From this I discern that Jock seriously believes that "come the revolution", every person will lose all their (land) property and (land) property-derived goods and there will be a "free for all" where everyone will assert their claims without a Land Registry.
Fuck me, and I thought anarcho-capitalism was hopelessly unrealistic.