Minarchists (both left and right), Georgists (“geolibertarians”), and centrist Niskanen “liberaltarians” are often given a libertarian label, and none are strictly opposed to a degree of government intervention to defend fundamental rights including the preservation of natural resources. It’s often agreed among these groups that common resources (like clean air and large bodies of water) should be defended against spoilage, as nobody can “own” these resources.

With the exception of the Niskanen group, it’s true that none of these groups have much of an effect on policy in recent decades, but I’d argue that’s more of a consequence of our governmental structure shutting out those with libertarian views except when it’s in the service of increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.

There’s a large segment of the population that desires less control/intervention imposed on the Everyman, versus the Randian view that centers on freedom of action for wealthy industrialists. You can see this group present in any discussion about Flock, or digital ID, or age verification. Or problems related to copyright (an artificial government-granted monopoly). These people just aren’t well-organized and don’t have any political power. Their only representation comes from mavericks like Massie and Wyden, who often get marginalized by their parties, or outsider influencers like Louis Rossman.

The group I just mentioned (libertarian populists, perhaps?) is less likely to care about regulations on big intangible things like corporations, large-scale economic activity, or highways, and more likely to care about regulations that affect average individuals, very small businesses (especially self-employed or contractors), or small groups like hobbyists. They see many regulations as benefiting key Red or Blue donor groups at their expense, and it’s often hard to argue with that!