I think the author could have created an interesting argument comparing classic liberalism and libertarianism and the role of some sort of "social good" but the implication of veering towards fascism is just silly. If you own a farm and I own a farm across the road and you want to protect your farm with 100 armed guards and I protect mine with 10 you are not impairing my individual interest by having 10x the might unless you are using your guards to attack my farm or threatening people who wish to patronize it.

If the argument is more about human nature and the fact that imbalances in might will always devolve into at very least intimidation if not aggression then it probably should have been framed that way.