Contrary to your premise, my 'libertarianism' is not based on 'rejecting' or 'conforming' to instinct or nature; but rather is an advocacy based in maximizing prosperity and minimizing suffering. Putting any kind of power backed by overwhelming violent force into the hands of a human being has never proved to do anything but the opposite of what I advocate, and therefor is also the opposite of what I advocate.
If, however, you are in some way advocating a peaceful and voluntary rejection of traditional roles and culture in advocacy of something more consensual; then I think it would be a mistake to think that all 'libertarian's are insisting that that not be done.
I assure you, it is only with the issue of coercion with which I am concerned. Indeed, it is a hallmark the State, and without it, it would be called a belief, a club, a religion, a business, and insurance, or many other peaceful things; but only the violent coercion is what makes a thing a part of the State, and is the only principle reason I am against such a concept.
