If a theory can’t stand constructive, thoughtful criticism, it’s already failed. Boundary analysis is fundamental. So is human nature.
In part what you say is true - The constructive difference between Conservatism and raw Libertarianism comes to mind - I cannot subscribe completely to the anarchical end that my programmer friends preach with a fervor close in kind to the acolyte... But I agree with them in large part, with something akin to the recognition of a needful civil-libertarianism in a Conservative conscience.
Careful here, because where the Open Source programmers want to take it is quite comparable to American Republicanism v. Monarchy or Tyranny. To the degree that power can be distributed, it should be distributed... To the degree that power can remain in local control, it should be in local control. To the degree that routing can remain anonymous and ubiquitous, so it should remain... Therein freedom is always preserved. One can argue that a benevolent monarch is more efficient (which is true), and that the preservation of freedom is necessarily disorderly (a messy business to be sure), but one is never guaranteed a benevolent monarch (history attests the opposite), and the end result - freedom - is a pearl of inestimable price, and is the thing to be preserved.
While Open Source geeks tend to be big L Libertarian, with a huge socialist bend socially (don't blame them, they have always been socially awkward : D ), when it comes to what they DO and understand, their thinking runs strongly toward rugged individualism and the precepts of liberty (a dichotomy which is an amazement to me).