Eh, as I said I'm not sure its really a distinction with much of a difference.
But, I think I'm developing the nuances of my thinking. I more or less still agree with the initial arguments put forward by the initial argument, namely that libertarians/liberals, which you yourself seem to use somewhat interchangeably (I'm not sure how you can reasonably claim the supreme court is libertarian if your not treating it as a synonym for liberal, in the classical form) act as a dissolving agent for any existing institutions/bonds of people, which leaves everything vulnerable to take over by socialists.
Because, as much as you protest it, it really does seem that Libertarianism implicitly assumes, at least in its mainstream form, a Rousseauian assumption of a default of freedom. That, in general, freedom comes from a deconstruction of oppressions, rather than the construction, though many oppressions, of a healthy, functional individual deserving and capable of freedom.
And, as said, I understand you protest this, but it fits with what I have seen of libertarians and their literature. They would deny it, since they don't like Rousseau, but its not uncommon for ideologies to deny things that are obviously part of their thinking: for example, almost everyone when asked directly will say they don't believe in the blank slate, but by their actions really, really seem to do so.
This I think inevitably put libertarianism innately on the left in the Petersonian paradigm, where he seems, at its most basic, to divide it between the pro order and pro chaos. Libertarianism is innately more pro chaos. That that chaos often creates another layer of great Tyranny (though often a fairly disordered one) is nether here nor there.
This I think will generally leave the Libertarians in opposition to anyone who wishes to be constructive of, well, nearly anything in a political sense. Politics at its base is about rewarding friends and hurting your enemies. Libertarianism is bad at doing either: its bad at giving rewards to its friends, its universal ideals not really being effective at targeting its friends in particular, while it doesn't hold as a virtue holding the grudge long enough to reach a point in power to deploy their wrath.
Thus, any good thing a libertarian is likely to do one will benefit whether they support them or not (the libertarian will defend the free speech rights of the communist to argue for the silencing of the libertarian) while crossing a libertarian has absolutely no danger, because they don't hold the grudge.
Which creates an immensely impotent political force.