No, because libertarianism says that libertarianism is correct, and that statism is wrong. If we say that morality is subjective, then libertarianism – or any other position — becomes meaningless. Since one is as good as the other. One can follow certain libertarian positions, but they should not consider themselves something or give themselves a name that traps them into a particular position. What they really want is to be nameless.
Ethics is about the means. Values are about the ends. So Libertarianism is compatible with subjective values, but not subjective morality. But ethics is only necessary for two reasons: because of the conflicts in social reality, and because of competing ideas about right and wrong behavioral means. Both of which call for an objective epistemology/investigation into a matter. So it cannot be subjective. If it is subjective, then there is no reason to talk about ethics at all. Likewise if values were objective, it would mean that praxeology is pointless.
Values and ethics are both subjective and objective, in some sense, but in different ways. This is where the confusion arises. Since there is ontological subjectivity and objectivity (existence), and epistemological subjectivity and objectivity (whether or not it can be investigated). These are different categories, and cannot be confused with each other.
I want a banana is about a value. This is subjective from an ontological point of view, but it can become objective through epistemology. That is, by my statement to another and the acknowledgment that my brain is producing this thought in material reality. This then reifies the statement into social reality via a medium like writing or speech. The problem here is that we demonstrate that objective does not equal ’ truth’, but it is objective nonetheless. Once we get rid of this confusion, it is more easy to say that it is objective. Objectivity comes before the statement about whether it is true or not. For instance, 2+2=5 is an objective statement that we can explore through proofs within the language of mathematics. But it is also false by the way of the investigation into that equation. 2+2=4 is equally objective, but it turns out to be true.
‘I can steal a banana’ is about ethics. This is subjective from an ontological point of view, but it can become objective through epistemology as well. For instance, we can investigate the legal, social, or logical legitimacy of the statement. It might not be against the law to steal it, the man might not care if you steal it, or it might contradict logic if he can simply steal it back. All of these can be demonstrated objectively. Here we are looking at only the means to obtain the banana, instead of the value of the banana or if one should value bananas. We only look at the banana (or the actor), if we want to say see if it changes the type of means. And then we go back to talking about the means.
Ethics itself is not about the means and ends of itself, because it itself is not something that has an object outside of itself. For instance, it is not the case that one can kill in order to find the truth about ethics or steal it. We also do not justify it based on a value, but based on the acceptance that it is right inherently to accept ethics. Since nothing seems to contradict it, and it is necessary to so much of language and social reality. If it were a value, it would be a value for something other than ethics or the resolving of certain conflicts themselves. Which isn’t necessary, even if other conclusions such as liberty and peace coincidentally rely on them. It’s true that it is necessary for something other than ethics, but this isn’t necessary to prove in order to have ethics. It could also be said that values require ethics. That is, we must say that having values or working towards them is good. Because for instance there is altruism which says that sometimes, or all the time, one must do the opposite of what one values.
We can’t take it for granted that we have a right to values. First of all, we must investigate this very right, so to speak, via ethics and the acceptance of ethics. That is that the means to values must be good and not bad, and others’ means to prevent our obtaining the value is good or bad. Some values will not be our right because of the problematic of the means. While others might be our right if the means are ethical. At other times, values can be both our right and not our right depending on the means. So a statement about a banana waits for the justification about the means I imagine for obtaining it. It is my right if I pay for it, but not if I steal it – that is probably more likely to be the case. But not both. And the means do not always justify the ends, obviously.