You could substitute any ideology and any laws they don't think should exist into that sentence. Laws prohibiting unions or punishing blasphemy are laws. The people who don't like those laws don't think you should have to follow them. Sometimes they're right.
There is an ideology where that is the defining characteristic, but it's not libertarianism, it's unadulterated anarchism.
There are many ideologies that believe in limitations on government regulation, and they're not all the same. A libertarian is not going to be on board with an anarcho-communist's desire to abolish private property, or a strict constitutionalist's willingness to have state and local governments set price controls. Whether a private monopolist/cartel is regarded as a form of government is a rather important practical distinction.
And hardly anyone is a pure anarchist -- how many people intend murder to be legal? So one way or another it's all about the details. And I'm assuming you're not a proponent of the opposite. Totalitarianism is the worst form of government including all of the others.
I can't even begin to take you seriously when you're arguing on behalf of the group who heckles their own political candidates because they believe in driver's licensing requirements.
You are claiming that absurd conflicts within a political party mean it cannot be taken seriously, but the Democrats have the "blue dog" faction and a prominent representative who recently proposed a fifty dollar an hour minimum wage law and the Republicans stretch from Romney to the colorful current party leadership.
If you were really thinking about whether or not to take Libertarians seriously then you might take some lessons from the book The Righteous Mind that points out moral axes and notes that liberals tend to focus on care and harm, conservatives focus most on fairness and cheating, and libertarians with their focus on liberty are just behind both of those. It might also be interesting to consider the content of Libertarian meetings which are often dominated by discussion of cannabis legalization, right to repair, and arguments for a universal basic income.
You misunderstood. I'm just trying to express the realities of Libertarian leaning politics. In this particular case I don't have a strong opinion and it isn't clear what options would most enhance the liberty of the general public. Uber has made an impact, but so far the business continues to lose vast amounts of money while disrupting similar options. How we might best structure this transportation sector seems to be an open question whether one is trying to optimize for liberty or efficiency or whatever else.
The US has "driver's licensing requirements" that are basically pro-forma. Any idiot can pass the test, more than 90% of adults have a driver's license and renewals don't even require a retest, implying that they're just an excuse to stick you for a fee.
It's the sort of thing that seems like it would serve some important function and then you try to imagine what would change if they didn't exist and it's hard to come up with anything serious.
Meanwhile it's a cause to charge you with a crime even if you harmed no one in any way, which is exactly the sort of thing that libertarians oppose, so it's entirely consistent that the audience would oppose it.
Externalities are damages. But that's not what these kinds of laws are trying to address.
The market is willing to provide car service to people in wheelchairs, for a particular price. A lot of people in wheelchairs can't afford that price. The law is trying to create a subsidy.
In principle the people who want the subsidy should be the ones paying for it. If you think subsidizing this is a good idea then you give your money to a charity, they use the money to subsidize the service, and then the market provides the service because somebody is paying for it.
You can also decide you don't want to be a libertarian and instead you want the government to subsidize the service out of tax revenue. Libertarians don't like this, because now you're taking money from the people who didn't agree to subsidize it without their consent. But also, politicians don't like this, because it's spending tax money and they'd prefer to spend that on their cronies in some government-adjacent industry.
So what politicians do instead is pass it as an unfunded mandate on whatever industry. This is still a tax, but now it's not a tax on e.g. rich people, it's a tax on other ride sharing customers and drivers. Who tend not to be rich people, because rich people have their own cars or private limousines or planes. Then we get a covert tax on the poor so that the overt tax money can go to defense contractors and other politically-connected corporations. It's at this point that you start to wonder if the libertarians might have been onto something.
this was proven true by the Libertarian backed Anti-Mask Rallies in Vegas, they did not care if they got people sick because they couldn't be held liable.
Not a single one of those things are librarian values.