??? Who, other than you, was talking about anarchy? What point is there to introducing anything have to do with anarchy when the discussion topic is libertarianism rather than a comparison of libertarianism with anarchy? Nobody who knows what they are talking confuses libertarianism with anarchy. Panoply/spectrum of Political Systems That's not a given. What is a given is that under totalitarianism, the individual or group holding power dictates the nature and extent to which individuals and entities are permitted to innovate and be creative, and the power wielders dictate who among the ruled is permitted to be innovative/creative. An adequately adept absolute and benevolent dictatorship (absolute monarchy) is a vastly more productive, efficient and beneficial system than are all the rest. Such a model suffers not from it's not being unable to produce great prosperity for the society, but rather in finding and emplacing in power an individual (or group thereof) who is both adequately adept and benevolent. Be that as it may, libertarianism's laissez faire approach to governance and economics brokers practically little mitigation of human nature, which is the problem with libertarianism (see also: Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)). To wit, avarice is intrinsic to human nature, yet libertarianism suffers little mitigation of it, declaring as paramount one's right property and subordinating the society to the individual. Put another way, libertarianism would allow a million people in a given libertarian polity to starve or freeze in the cold before it insisted that the 200,000 people, in that same polity and having more than adequate resources, share some of them to prevent those million folks dying of hunger/exposure. Libertarianism is essentially social and economic Darwinism "on steroids."