Worse, there have been two "libertarian cities" over the past few years that suffered an awful fate. First thousands of people moved to a town in NH and then voted themselves into all city positions. They shut off the government, had everything collapse, and returned to where they came from a few years later when it turned out that fire fighters are nice and bears roaming the town (cuz one person's hobby was to feed them donuts and they are libertarian so they can do that dontchano). In AZ, they built a community without any infrastructure specifically to avoid taxes and government control--they were buying water from another community until that community said they needed the water for themselves, leaving them with nothing.

Part of the problem is that from a social history standpoint, libertarianism typically has attracted people looking for an ideology to justify their selfishness.

The ideology that tends to attract people who value social organization while minimizing a forceful overarching government has been anarchism.

Well it makes sense. Most people think they are lucky, and to one extent they are, the unlucky ones are all dead so survivor bias. Once they are aware of a problem they reason out they will be the lucky one. Additionally, the interests of an individual has little to do with the interests of the crowd. We really should start learning this concept and stop with the invisible hand nonsense. It could make perfect sense for someone in the energy sector to keep burning oil. It can make sense for a company to not bother with environmental cleanup. It can make sense for a restaurant owner to not want a lockdown.

The whole appeal to rational self-interest depends on a false premise. Biology has furnished an example. For the point of view of cancer it makes perfect sense to keep on multipling. The time horizon of each cancer cell is pretty short maybe a few months. If it doesn't spends those months multipling as fast as it can other will.

The hope of libertarians is that they would do it out of a mutual interest in protecting others.

The larger the population you apply that ideal to, the less possible it is, due to tribalism. To get rid of tribalism you have to get rid of humans. Fail to get rid of tribalism and libertarianism isn't just dead on arrival, it's spontaneously aborted.

The whole point of a liberal democracy is that you replace "force" with individual political agency and consensus seeking mechanics. The state still maintains a monopoly on violence to some degree, but violence isn't a necessary part of administering that monopoly. This is like the original enlightenment libertarian ideal. The whole Ayn Rand revisionist school and now whatever the fuck it is that Jordan Peterson is on is what fucked up the terminology

I don't think it's possible to reconcile no force, only mutual interest action, individual free actions with no or minimal negative mutual impact, and a single acceptable outcome...for basically any issue.