The great libertarian error is the belief that property rights are not a dose-limited drug. Every prosperous society has property rights. They are essential to the emergence of a commercial structure. But once one admits that there is such a thing as a public nuisance, that one should not have the right to operate a stinky, noisy factory in a residential area, because the air surrounding property is not yours, the whole idea of "maximal" protection of property rights evaporates into that air. Private property is a necessary inconvenience for those who don't own it. It should be tolerated and protected to the extent necessary. But it is not a rock on which to build a political church.

I can't dissect the entire libertarian project here. Suffice it to say that no one should own the air that moves over us, so we need a government, not a "contract" - except insofar as a government is a contract - to defend our access to it. Crime happens, even where it "behooves" people not to be criminals.

That said, I agree that "libertarian" progressives seek license rather than liberty. Whether they would devolve into communists is up in the air, but they are not philosophical libertarians. Thing is, they are rebelling against conservative rules. So why should libertarians be conservatives?

We all get to define things to suit our purposes. To me, being "libertarian" means regarding autonomy as a default condition, subject to a persuasive showing to a skeptical mind that any particular constraint on that autonomy is necessary. I'm thinking of constraints like not being permitted to trespass on what the government says is "someone else's" land. (We certainly can't let owners decide who owns the land, can we? Neighbors, as between themselves, yes. But as against strangers? Nah.)

Oh, and one more thing. How is Rand's Jewishness relevant? I'm not a fan of hers; I, too, think Objectivism is trash. But then, I think Rothbard was a fool, so I'm an equal opportunity dismisser of ideologues. And he was Jewish, too. Was he meaningfully more religious than Rand? Gratuitous nonsense like this has a way of eroding seriousness.