I remember those times, and over the years what I think I can distill it to is that when you have physical competence at something, you come to believe, unders

I remember those times, and over the years what I think I can distill it to is that when you have physical competence at something, you come to believe, understand, and respect the effects of things like work and truth. When you don't have physical competence, you respect alignment to power and its narratives because you know truth does not always prevail, but power and alignment to it invariably does. Material rewards come from alliances, not knowledge or work, etc. They're irreconcilable poles that we can generate some temporary value from with finesse and management, but I think the libertarian urge comes from a belief in truth that is demonstrably not universal. It's worth looking at the context of the time, where there was also a sense that these were previously poles around ideas of masculinity and femininity, where if you were one and embraced the values of the other, it was unsex-y, where concrete-thinking women and fluidly-political men were misfit social exceptions. Today I don't think that's as common at all, so current libertarianism is a kind of nostalgia for a time when the things it was existing as a reaction to were still present, and they aren't as central themes today. However, the values of truth, self-reliance, competence, work, anti-authoritarianism, commensurate responsibilities for rights, limited privileges, individual freedom, simple rules-based orders, sound money, freedom of conscience, family integrity, and live and let live, lassier-faire principles are all still very much alive. I even suspect we're about to see a major conflict over them, but it's not really hacker libertarianism, it's just human dignity. That doesn't always prevail either, but I am not aware of an example where it wasn't worth absolutely everything to try. :)