The main utility of Monero is being able to make anonymous transactions. The downside of the crime that this enables far outweighs whatever libertarian ideals I may be sympathetic to. It's just a bad idea for society.
More importantly, the vast majority of anonymous transactions occur via ownership secrecy havens. Quadrillions are held and transferred in offshore havens like Nevis, which has beneficiary and ownership secrecy baked into their constitution. Monero democratizes transaction secrecy, allowing the middle class to have the same level of financial privacy that criminal organizations attain regularly by incorporating in an offshore haven and hiring the appropriate lawyers. If transaction secrecy were a legitimate concern of yours, you would be eliminating it where it actually happens and facilitates crime first.
I'm sincerely asking. That appears to me the endpoint of the argument you make here. I might be wrong in my interpretation or conclusion, so please do correct any inaccuracies or leaps you find in my post.
I am not a fan of cryptocurrency, because I think it is stupid. But I am a fan of (actually) anonymous and privacy preserving currencies. So I can continue to not harm or victimize others, but acquire the molecules that make me the most functional.
This is certainly an ideal that libertarians hold, though I do not claim myself or my views as being particularly libertarian.