Is there any flavor of libertarianism that even in theory makes sense? I lump libertarians together which I guess is unfair but I only talk to them online and they always seem to so similar however they define themselves with nuance. I find them to be ridiculous, obnoxious, and selfish.
For example - at Bluesky I just had an argument with a self-described socio-libertarian who was against "disruptive" protests against climate change. The character limit at Bluesky makes an actual discussion pointless in a situation like this. But they were an asshole anyway so that limit did me a favor. And I didn't need to her some kind of fantastical thinking about the magic of the free market solving climate change.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about libertarian socialism...
Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.
Not to dogpile further, but you are, like most liberals (of which a libertarian is just yet another flavor of), getting into the weeds of policy without even figuring out the basics of even simplistic political philosophy, because so much of it has been taken for granted in your life.
Let's take this seemly simple statement "I want the government to generally leave me alone as long as I am not doing anything to harm anybody."
This is impossible, the statement of an idealist constitutionalist, which has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Why is this? Well, because someone has to define what constitutes 'harm'. If it is not you, then someone else will, which means that you can't leave government to passively sit. Well then, who can dictate what constitutes 'harm'? Of course the people who agree to the constitutional contract. Ok then, at what point do you get to decide your constitutional contract? What happens if two different constitutional agreements definitions of 'harm' are at odds with each other? Who is the arbiter then? How is that arbiter decided? What if there is a disagreement with the arbiter? How is that conflict settled? Even this seemingly simple statement is fraught with issues.
These are things that can and have been argued and in some cases 'solved' by liberal bourgeoisie democracy for centuries to decades at this point. However libertarians, especially 'leftist' libertarians, get so caught up in policy that they have no structure for actually figuring out very real basic political and social science issues. I'm not saying ML theory has it 'solved' but it's foundations, such as "The state apparatus exists to monopolize violence, all other aspects of it are secondary, the key is appropriate that violence for the betterment of the industrial working class, the only class that can hope to transition us out of the necessity of states as it is the only class that is likely to effectively replicate the means of production and bring about an ideology, culture and production basis for universal post-scarcity, which will dissolve the need for a state to monopolize violence" has a better understanding of what the state does, how it actually functions, and what is likely necessary in order to dissolve it as a human institution.
There are tech libertarians that also believe their ideology and technology will bring about this post scarcity society as well, but they, as a bourgeoisie class, do not actually replicate the means of production, and have far more material incentive to engage in and profligate M-M market conditions which do not lead to lessening of global poverty, post scarcity and the withering of the state, which is why despite being nominally 'progressive' they are prone to strong ideological reactionary backlash.
I'm not a liberal. I hate it when those surveys ask me what "ideology" I am and the only options range from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal". I know I'm anti-Capitalist and I know I want a more collectivized form of society.
This seems straightforward to me unless I'm missing something? Under my ideal government, the working class democratically approves a new constitution which will define how we arbitrate issues between people. We'll probably end up with a court system, but one that is much more fair and equitable and one that isn't influenced by who can afford the best lawyers.
But I'm not an expert on this and I wonder how much direct Democratic control is necessary vs. what I call "occasional" Democratic control. I'm not an expert on building codes and I'm guessing most of the working class aren't either, so maybe we let the experts among the carpenters and architects and other building-people form a committee to decide what regulations get placed on buildings so that they are sturdy, use as little carbon as possible, etc. Ditto for day-to-day operations of a company. Workers should definitely have a say in how everything is run, but does that mean the people driving delivery trucks get to choose what software the Accounting department uses?
What you are asking for is a vastly different thing than 'I want the government to stay out of my business unless I am harming someone'. Every worker council constitutes an aspect of government, and if their judgements are legally binding, an element of the state. All of those determinations can and should be made by the workers directly involved in their production, however enforcement of those decisions and arbitration of those conflicts may require the use of the state apparatus.
Mostly you just seem confused.