>>6253
Not particularly.
Standard status quo democratic centrism says everybody's opinion should count equally. Anarcho-communism and friends really don't like hierarchies, so even if what they want is oppression by your standards then you'll be oppressed by the collective, not an elite. And so on. I do think they have at least a little of that idea, but not a lot.
But an impression I get from many libertarians is that they fantasize about the most capable people being able to amass wealth and use their superior decision-making to improve society, with the cream rising to the top and gaining power.
And sure, that may not involve coercion-as-defined-by-libertarians, but it doesn't particularly less fit the described pattern than most non-libertarian ideologies. The bottom line is that society is improved because the elite can flourish.
Pretty much all ideologies have an element of "wouldn't things be better if the rules were made by well-thinking people". That's how all memetically fit ideologies work. Libertarianism isn't exempt.
Some ideologies do have more of it than others, of course. It's a combination of authoritarianism and hierarchies. Libertarianism might not be authoritarian, but it's hierarchical, so it has it somewhat but not maximally.
Then the specific version described in the post is authoritarianism + hierarchies + IQ, which sounds NRxish.