..... Ok, there is nothing to really comment on here.
I mean, M_P is right on the issue of ruveyn's definition of libertarianism. Part of that is just seen with the libertarian movement actually having anarchists as easily identified as reflecting the same broad ideology. For instance, Murray Rothbard is a hero in many segments of libertarianism, but he's also famous as the father of anarcho-capitalism. In fact, often MANY people exist in both communities and often the finding is that these communities communicate with such ease that... anarcho-capitalism is best understood as an extreme brand of libertarianism.
Beyond that.... I don't see the point, especially given that libertarianism isn't this clearly defined position, but rather actually is an ideology like other ideologies. It's narrower, but deontological ethics are not necessary for the notion to exist(many libertarians were proclaimed utilitarians or other notions), nor does the position commit a person to as much as strictly as one may think. This can be stated with some confidence, if only because at least one libertarian figure or another has admitted to some variation. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertari ... tions.html
I don't see what else to comment on here. Maybe some libertarians, or the libertarian party have very questionable ideas, but... if we try to understand the notion as being broadly taken as an ideology, then it becomes more comprehensible, even if some absurdities are found. (And even then, it must be noted that in political ideas, there are enough absurdities to drive anybody mad)