Ever read Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'? I suspect the answer is yes...Not quite.
I will say I aspire to both Libertarian, and Anarchist ideals, while accepting that they cannot be achieved in this very imperfect world. For either to work would require a level of knowledge and understanding across all of society that is realisticually beyond what is possible for anyone.
A benevolent libertatian doesn't want the society posited in Atlas Shrugged. Rather, they would like a society where everyone has perfect knowledge of what is required by all facets of society, and chooses to contribute accordingly. So it's where the far right Libertarian meets the far left Anarchist - both would like a society where there is no compusion on people to act, but rather people act based on their belief that it is the right thing to do.
As an example, my inner Libertarian despises Jeff Bezos, whilst admiring Bill Gates. Gates built a vast fortune by selling something (mostly) new and valuable, whilst treating all his employees well. Microsoft has always been a great place to work, and employees do well financially whilst doing a jobe they enjoy. Bezos has simply driven cost out of a distribution network by exploiting his workers and a market position. Likewise Musk with Tesla, which has only survived based on government subsidies - a lot of money has flown from the pockets of a lot of people into Musks bank accounts.
The Libertarian view I aspire to does say that some people will have more than others - due to both luck and effort. But it also says that those with more will contribute more, however they will contribute as they choose. For instance, I would like to fund the police to protect life and property, but would not give them a cent to police drug use. I'd fund preventative medicine through the GP network but not heroic surgery to prolong life. I'd want all lawyers to get minimum wage only - our legal system is a parasite that mostly supports the rich. Other Libertarians would have other views, and hopefully it would result in a society in balance.
But to achieve all this - and to make resource decisions that support this philisophy - I would need to have a deep understanding of both needs in EVERY area, and real time funding. I concede this isn't possible, so I cannot be a libertarian.
I don't believe that everyone else is capable of this either, so nor can I be an anarchist. (plus I admit I'm too selfish to be live in anarchy)