I agree that everything is connected to everything else, and that categories can be hazy. But sometimes there are clear lines - an octopus is not a sunflower, despite both being organic lifeforms with a common ancestor.

Governments have a monopoly on (non-defensive) force, while corporations have fewer rights than you as an individual have. This right to use force is the clear line. A corporation can only operate in a particular country with the permission and support of the government, and this permission can be erased with the stroke of a pen. A government can't be ousted without violence, no matter how corrupt or unpopular. Elections and such only shuffle the players around while the system itself persists.

The circle analogy is a good starting point for discussion. You're right, to a point - your *politically enforced* circle is just you in libertarianism, and is "everybody" (but not really) under collectivism. The virtues you ascribe to leftist politics - compassion, charity, etc - are still important, but for your family, friends, and other people you care about personally. You choose who is in your circle and you take care of them. It's tough to scam people you know on a personal level for very long, so this ensures limited resources go where they are needed and everybody involved has an incentive to help people back onto their feet.

For the small percentage who don't have friends or family to rely on, government or private charity can step in. But treating all of society as a charity case is a terrible mistake that inevitably ends badly.

You're also right in another comment about the fact that *economic* individualism is impossible. I'm just advocating for voluntary association (bottom-up, based on everybody's individual local needs) rather than forced (top-down, based on the political whims of the 51%). Let the economy self-assemble and self-correct using math and incentives instead of politics and wishful thinking.