Yeah, and there's never a reason given why "freedom" as conceived by a libertarian trumps all other values. It's just asserted that freedom is the most important fundamental human value from which all others derive, and thus it's the highest. I am not convinced (though I once was).

And the non-aggression principle fails to be useful when human relationships enter into the context; that is, it fails to be useful at all. I am partial to the libertarian ideal, as much as I don't like it, and in my own personal life, what others consider perfectly normal, I often feel as an attempt of coercion because of my libertarian affinity. And this is in relationship without a power dynamic. In other contexts, both in my life and from what I've seen of others, and especially where power dynamics exist, the assumptions of non-aggression principle are being routinely violated.

Human relationships restrict freedom in all sorts of ways and interfere with others's abilities, too. My use of a public bathroom removes from you the opportunity to use it simultaneously. You are less free in a sense because of my need to relieve myself. Attending to my biological needs results in a restriction of your opportunities. Sure, that's a trivial example, but, from a libertarian perspective, that restriction on freedom is not less important than more meaningful instances, like taxes that redistribute wealth. A violation of freedom is a violation of freedom. Period. It is after all, the fundamental value of what freedom is" and "before everything else".

In short, globalized libertarianism is both derivative and trashy.