Now C'mon, That's Just Plain Ignorant

Sweet jebus:

The only thing I disagree with is the notion that there is an idealistic libertarianism that exists outside of the ugly view that humans exist in service of money or social hierarchies. As far as I can tell, that’s the whole point of libertarianism.

Argh... that's about the absolute inverse of anything that can remotely be called "libertarianism". Here's the lede from the SEP:

Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view.

Societies are constituted by individuals and exist solely to serve them; individuals most emphatically do not exist to serve social hierarchies. And I don't care who happens to be calling themselves a "libertarian" these days; words have meanings and no amount of self-identification on the part of third parties will change that. If Amanda wants to play that game then Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Palin are feminists and feminism is nothing more than a ploy to keep women chained to the stove.