So one could argue that it's an unrealistic "philosophy" that is just used to provide cover for said people's selfish bullshit.
Also, when born into a system that forces you, on threat of violence, to participate in it, there is no peaceful alternative that permits an opt out, so saying that those people benefit (in your view) when they have no other option, is extremely disingenuous. Do people also benefit from the war on drugs being waged against them?
There are lots of legitimate critiques of libertarianism. Neither the false dichotomy nor the ad hominem you offered are among them.
Not everyone agrees that that particular form of stability and security that you seem to think is such a huge benefit is worth the cost: specifically, that every person alive in a certain region must be forced, on threat of violence, to pay and participate in that stability-providing system, even if they vehemently do not consent to such.
Perhaps you value stability and security above all else, and think it’s a good deal. Others that do not, and consider the price (morally, in the legitimization of armed robbery, to say nothing of the dollar figure) too high, are not being selfish by having those values.
Libertarianism is not the opposite of “socially interdependent”. It’s the opposite of “forced at the point of a gun”.
It's easy to have these bullshit opinions when you're a white male adult who didn't get eaten by wolves at 5 months old because there was a whole society and social structure that allowed you to safely grow up into the adult you are now.
And now that you've benefited from all that society has given to you in order for you to be where you are today, you want to opt out?
Pay back every dollar spent on you by everyone else, since you were born, and only then you can go live alone in the mountains..