"where segregated lunch counters don't exist"

Segregated by law. Look it up.

"than some kkk asshat being able to tell me to move to some other city where my "kind" is tolerated"

Like sheriffs and politicians do?

"to the days where I could be pushed out of a store with a shotgun just for being the wrong skin color."

You really, really need to read some history. You would learn that the bus companies did not want to discriminate, discrimination was the law. You would learn that the US was the only country in the world to eliminate chattel slavery through war, which left some bad feelings. You would learn that the poverty rate was dropping continuously until the Great Society enshrined poverty and ensured that there would always be poor to "care for".

Maybe, just maybe, you've been blaming the wrong people all your life. But don't let facts get in the way of a good "Oh Woe Is Me, Give Me More Money" sob story.

For someone who then talks about enslaved Oompa Loompas, you seem to have a very insincere grasp of Liberty.

If the hippies want to set up a socialist utopia, they are welcome to do so, on their own time and land. Some have.

If the libertarians don't want to pay taxes, then again they are welcome to pay the FULL COSTS of their decisions, no externalizing costs through taxes and regulations.

After all, if the Oompa Loompas can be can be said to be enslaved, then taxation must be recognized as armed robbery.

"Charged particles, on the other hand, may be held at a known location and/or known path with the application of a containment field."

Heisenberg begs to differ.

"It's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form."
Sad fact? That you are exposed to ideas that you disagree with? Surely that's a good thing.
And why crazy? Again just because you find the ideas uncomfortable, how does that make it 'crazy'? If you agree with the general axioms of the libertarian movement then anarcho-capitalism is just taking the ideas to their natural logical conclusion. If you don't think that the axioms are crazy then you cannot think that the outcome is crazy. You might not like that outcome, or think it's unrealistic in practice or even impossible, but that's another issue. Many anarcho-capitalists think the small-govt minarchists are the crazy ones for thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Minarchists are still statists, the only difference between them and totalitarian states is the arbitrary point they choose on the spectrum for where *they* would like freedom to end. That is inconsistent with their argument for freedom in the first place, their claims to the contrary and protecting 'rights' by initiating force notwithstanding.
If you choose an ethical philosophy (which is what libertarianism is at heart, rather than a political one) then you simply cannot pick and choose where you decide to stop following the conclusions of your philosophy (just because it is 'convenient' or 'practical') and still expect to be taken seriously when you use your philosophy to justify something. If you believe it is ethical to initiate violence to achieve your ends then be happy with the use of force against you. You can have no qualms about it's use againsgt you as you agree with it in principle. If you do not believe that initiating violence is ok, (and that applies to everyone) then follow that to it's conclusion and you have the 'crazy' world the anarcho-capitalists inhabit. You may not like what that world says, but at least it is ethically consistent given the axioms.

  There are reasonable ones out there, I've talked to em. I want to hear what they think. :)

"you do not have a right to demand that no one else do the same"
I don't agree. When you sell something you can sell just a subset of those rights. The contract/agreement will determine which rights are being transferred and under what terms. Both parties may agree not to transfer full ownership rights, and only assign the subset of rights for a limited time (such as rental or lease agreements). When you rent a vehicle you know that it isn't yours to onsell, you only have the use of it for an agreed period. That is defined by the contract. Any other transfer of a set of property rights can be bound by the same kind of agreements. The arguments about 'purchasing' ownership of the physical media miss the point, that the actual set of property rights you have agreed to are listed in the contract of sale (in whatever form that may be). If you do not abide by the terms then the contract can be terminated by the seller. Whether it constitutes theft on your part is another issue, but at the very least you are in breach of contract.
So I'd say that yes you can demand that others do the same, as long as both parties are aware of and agree to the terms of the agreement. Either side is free not to enter the contract if they are unhappy with the terms. That surely is the essence of free association.