I think the author could have created an interesting argument comparing classic liberalism and libertarianism and the role of some sort of "social good" but the implication of veering towards fascism is just silly. If you own a farm and I own a farm across the road and you want to protect your farm with 100 armed guards and I protect mine with 10 you are not impairing my individual interest by having 10x the might unless you are using your guards to attack my farm or threatening people who wish to patronize it.

If the argument is more about human nature and the fact that imbalances in might will always devolve into at very least intimidation if not aggression then it probably should have been framed that way.

I quit reading it, because stuff like what you've excerpted comes up frequently. I've never found the cases to be difficult to refute at all and I'm not that interested in refuting people who argue disingenuously.

Smearing people who categorically reject initiating aggression for political purposes as "fascistic" is as radical of a misunderstanding of both libertarianism and fascism as one could make.

If someone misunderstands what libertarianism is that badly, then I agree with @kepford that whatever they call themselves they are not a libertarian.

I took him at his word here, that he was making the usual definitions of things a little squishy to make a point, and that he was trying to reveal something about some libertarians that he disagrees with:

I also believed what he said the paragraph before, that he isn't describing libertarians as fascistic generically, and instead attempting to reveal that some libertarians are more motivated by taking away positive rights from people they don't like, and gaining new non-violent but anti-social powers, than they are interested in securing negative rights for us all:

It's been a long time since I've spent time in these political boundary setting exercises. (I find them exhausting and myself ineffective at moving political boundaries.) I don't think he's arguing in bad faith even if I'd agree he's being somewhat inconsiderate to make a point. I do think some libertarians are libertarians for anti-social reasons and are mostly looking to protect their anti-sociality. It's their right to be anti-social, or fascistic, non-violently, but I wouldn't mind partitioning them out of my political tribe wherever they are.

I find myself wanting libertarianism to be concerned with the common good indirectly at the very least. I think the only thing he attacked in this article was an attitude that some libertarian bitcoiners have.