I'm not defending intentionally running down protesters as there's no excuse for that. However, I also don't think protesters have any right to block the free movement of others. Free speech is one thing, violating the rights of others is another. If necessary, they should be forcibly removed and/or arrested for that, not run over. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think most people supporting what that driver did probably have the same general viewpoint but are overreacting. But some people are just assholes.

Taking the other viewpoint though, if you are traveling from point A to point B for whatever reason...maybe someone's life depends on it, maybe a loved one is dying at point B and you only have minutes to say your goodbyes, maybe you just like the view better at point B...and someone intentionally blocks your path, how much force should you be able to use to get them out of your way? I think what that driver did was wrong but I would feel differently if they allowed their truck to roll forward very slowly giving everyone ample opportunity to get out of the way. Then if someone got hurt it would be their own fault as far as I'm concerned. The driver has the right to go from point A to point B and the protesters don't have the right to prevent him from doing so (unless there's something I'm missing in these particular circumstances).

To address another comment you made, libertarians aren't for allowing corporations to pollute the earth, they just don't think the way to handle it is via regulatory agencies. It's through making corporations responsible for damage to property (including yourself and your health) through civil (or criminal depending on the circumstances) courts. There shouldn't be this massive, unintelligible and largely unnecessary and even counterproductive regulatory environment we have today that in large part has been built up by special interests. Part of the problem is that too much protection is given to those who incorporate and then as if to make up for that a complex regulatory system is devised over time. If someone or group at a company makes the conscious decision to dump poison known to cause harm and then someone is harmed then they should be held responsible, period. No regulation needed beyond basic laws that exist preventing people from knowingly or negligently harming others or their property. The system of checks and balances as far as lawmaking goes are largely circumvented by the creation of agencies (like the EPA) who are granted broad powers to essentially create their own laws (regulations).

I consider myself a libertarian though not necessarily a Libertarian (as in the party) and not an anarchist which is what many people who claim to be libertarian really are. I suppose if I were pure libertarian I would support completely open boarders which I do not. I think we've had this discussion before and I stipulate that there are a great many improvements that need to be made to the immigration system and I think that in general all non-criminal immigrants should be let in provided that they will not immediately become a public burden. The problem is that at a minimum you need a criminal background check. Depending on what country the immigrants are coming from, this can take months...maybe longer. I think Mexico is actually pretty quick, relatively speaking, but some other South American countries are not. So what do you do with immigrants who you are waiting for a background check for? They have to either be detained for the length of time it takes or sent back. What do you do with immigrants who are coming with no place to live, no immediate prospects for a job, don't speak English, etc.? I don't have an answer for that one but I don't think the answer can be that U.S. taxpayers are forced to solve that problem. To the extent that charitable organizations are willing and able to help such people or other individuals are willing to support them they should be let in but that might leave a considerable shortfall. But perhaps simply allowing in all immigrants with the caveats I mention would be enough to largely solve the problem. I don't know that it would though.

The comparison to concentration camps is nonsense and I generally won't even engage with people making such comparisons as they are obviously detached from reality, ignorant of history or otherwise incapable of reasoned discourse. If Nazis only detained illegal immigrants (Jewish or otherwise), fed them, gave them basic medical attention, didn't gas or otherwise torture or murder them, and allowed them to return where they came from, we wouldn't be talking about their concentration camps today for the "comparison" to even be made. They might as well compare the truck driver to Hitler why they are at it. A legitimate problem exists but that doesn't mean we need to resort to the most extreme hyperbole possible. It's counterproductive and only drives polarization on the issue. Clearly ICE workers and those that support border security are not generally Nazis and don't see themselves as such. How is accusing them of that going to help solve the problem? The whole mentality that "Either you agree with me or you are a racist, terrorist Nazi" has got to change or nothing else will.