It is a matter of philosophical differences, not a "line drawing game". I find it undeniable that many feel entitled to things they ought not. You're welcome to disagree -- but the disagreement isn't quite as trivial as you say.
As for me deeming my own philosophy 'evenhanded' and others sense of entitlement 'inflated' ... life works exactly that way. People typically find their own opinions reasonable.
Personally, I think acts of physical aggression should be where the line is drawn.. Anything else should be left to individual liberty..
Stealing your car isn't an act of physical aggression. Its a property violation. There should be, at minimum, a right of security in property that can be enforced on other citizens.
You are right jack, I totally left out property rights, that was my bad. Acts of aggression and violation of property rights should be where the line is drawn.
Stealing property, fraud is an indirect initiation of physical force. It does fall under the libertarian NAP. Rand says much better - the principle of "non-initiation of physical force".
Its more easily categorized as a property crime rather than indirect violence. Why bother arguing the nuances of the categorization when you can just as easily include property rights among those which libertarians believe deserve protection?
"I got mine, go get yours" is closer.
Of course fuck everyone else. That's why Rand's crap has had a resurgence since the 1980's. "I've got mine." Too bad she didn't follow her own polemic. Her latter life was contradictory to all the shit she postulated.
I challenge you to present a single quote that amounts to "fuck everyone else". On the contrary, Rand would not be an advocate of individual rights and free trade if she believed that.
I wouldn't anticipate a coherent conversation with that one. Its been tried. Keep your expectations low.