Right-wing libertarianism is a weird discipline, but nowadays most people who self-identify as libertarian are right-wing libertarians, so most people when they think of libertarianism think of right-wing, rabidly pro-corporate ideology such as that which is practiced and promoted by Cato.
Libertarianism of the Cato variety is a key underpinning, you could argue THE key underpinning, of bourgeious Republicanism's (as distinct from proletarian Republicanism, which is mostly about emotional appeals to pseudopopulist crapola that Cato-ites find quite embarrassing) socioeconomic theory. So while few people out in TV-land know what Cato is, they are very influential among important Republican intellectuals.
Interestingly, Cato opposed the Iraq war pretty vigorously at the time. The reason that this did little or nothing to stop support from the war among folks who normally view Cato's pronouncements with something approaching ecstatic awe is open to analysis. But my point is the reverse - why did Cato, corporate capitalism's house organ, oppose the invasion of Iraq?
In my view, the answer to this question is that besides from being clearly morally bankrupt, dishonestly peddled, and incompetently prosecuted [I can find no way to enforce parllel structure here - suggestions for "bankrupt" synonyms that are also verbs will be taken in the comments], the Iraq war was completely fucking crazy.
From a 2002 policy analysis paper by Cato:
There are less costly strategies for dealing with Hussein than conducting a war. Hussein, while he may not act morally, is rational in the sense that economists and political scientists use the term. An examination of his past actions indicates that his principal need is to maintain his own physical and political survival. Using that knowledge, Washington can develop a strategy that would allow the United States to deter Hussein from taking actions detrimental to U.S. national security, without engaging him in warfare.
The free-market faithful may be somewhat deluded when it comes to macroeconomic theory, but sadly, their heads are apparently screwed on a lot straighter than so-called "mainstream" politicians and their boosters.
Something to think about.