This is all just narrative policing. Reminiscent of the “thick” vs “thin” libertarianism debate from a while back.
(Lol btw I can see you’ve read Hoppe)
I’d agree that the definitional understanding of libertarianism in the article is flawed and doesn’t get the broader point. Folks want harmony and tranquility.
But it’s also true that negative reactions and increased hostility will put off many people to some of these ideas, whatever good it may do them, purely based on how they’re treated.
Ultimately, the question of government power for most people just isn’t how they view the world. It will take time, but they will understand if we give them room to change their mind.
It’s the ultimate paradox: libertarian ideas are the best for humanity to survive and prosper, but many messengers of these ideas often do more harm than good in representing them for public consumption