There is a difference between a “strawman argument” (one of the top 10 most overused and misused terms on the Internet) and the concept of logical extremes.
The ideology of libertarianism means that one group cannot impose a set of restrictions on another. You may deny it, but that is at its core.
Once that core is established, there are no restrictions. An absence of restrictions is a form of anarchy.
That is the logical extremes of the liberaltarians.
I’ve stated my case. It is airtight and logical and commits no fallacies.
I have also described the critical divide between conservatives and libertarians and why I will never vote for a libertarian and why, though we are united in our fight against big government, we are essentially and critically opposed to one another.
"To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
You can't refute libertarian beliefs, so you replace it with anarchy and then refute it. Despite your attempts to equate them, libertarianism is not anarchy.
The ideology of libertarianism means that one group cannot impose a set of restrictions on another. You may deny it, but that is at its core.
Here lies your error. Libertarianism does not oppose all restrictions. Perhaps the old 'my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose' rings a bell. Since your premise is false, the rest of your argument falls apart. And, since libertarianism is, therfore, not anarchy, your argument is the perfect example of a straw man.
An absence of restrictions is a form of anarchy.
An absence of restrictions sounds more like the definition of freedom, not anarchy.