All of the things I listed are deeply... and I do mean deeply... anti-libertarian. That's the "pragmatism" I mention...
All of them? I do not agree. Let's take a look.
"Pragmatism" also led to anti-discrimination laws, anti-fraud laws, anti misleading advertising/labelling of products, a fire service that you don't have to individually specifically pay for, a certain level of employment law, effective health care systems (and I personally support the Swiss and Singapore setups), mechanisms to control/monitor immigration, the whole "fire in a crowded theatre" limitations on free speech and countless other reforms.
I'm not convinced any of those are "deeply" anti-libertarian, but let's cover some obvious objections.
Effective health care systems... well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by effective health care systems. Libertarians are not against such, they just don't generally believe government run systems are effective.
Mechanisms to control/monitor immigration... I don't agree with him, but libertarian thinker Hans-Hermann Hoppe is, last I checked, very much in favor of controlling immigration. And I would venture to say many other libertarians are okay with a some immigration control, just not the level we currently have in the U.S.
The whole "fire in a crowded theater" limitations on free speech... Are there libertarians against that? I would be interested to see an argument from a libertarian against the not falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater limitation. I have certainly never seen one. Nor any against libel or slander or fraud limitations.
Tell me more about Switzerland (a country that mandates health insurance) and how their government interferes with what their citizens should eat and how much exercise they should be required to do? That would be the same Switzerland that regularly either tops or comes near to the top of any "freedom" (political, social, economic) indexes out there.
I'm not concerned with Switzerland. I don't live there. I live in the U.S. where politicians of various sorts are already trying to pass laws controlling things like salt and fat.
Do you believe anti-discrimination laws are wrong in principle?
Yes. And I also believe we wouldn't have needed them if we had not first had laws enforcing discrimination.
If they believe that laws against fraud are important then they're not Libertarians... at least in the sense I've always seen libertarianism mentioned.
I am still wondering who these fraud-tolerant libertarians are.
As I've seen it Libertarianism is essentially a new name for classical liberalism once the turn liberal was corrupted and therefore takes most of its ques from there. The central ones of these is the harm principle: paraphrased, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent harm to others. Now, as it stands that phrase is so wide it's meaningless... I can use it justify anything from full on Libertarian values to the most overbearing government possible but Libertarianism generally has a very strict version of it: "harm" is purely physical and even then, interpreted tightly. That leaves fraud... an economic harm... firmly outside that spectrum.
Again, I haver never seen any libertarian make the argument that fraud or economic harm is somehow acceptable. On the contrary, I have seen libertarians argue that fraud should indeed be illegal. (Of course, they argue that should apply to individuals, businesses and
government.) Perhaps not all libertarians agree on that point, but your argument that it is unlibertarian simply does not accord with my libertarian philosophy, or in my experience with of that of libertarian thought in general.
Even if you disagree with the harm principle theory then the market based nature of Libertarianism rears its head. Another general principle of Libertarianism is that when the choice is between a market solution and a state one the market solution is not only normally more practical but also desirable in and of itself because it involves people freely doing business rather than being coerced. As fraud can be dealt with by the markets... because once someone has committed a fraud people would be highly unlikely to ever deal with them again... it leaves the question, why should the state interfere?
I have seen a similar argument made about many regulations, but never about fraud. Fraud is theft. If what you were saying were true, then libertarianism would be against anti-theft laws, and that is simply not the case. Some hardcore anarcho-capitalists might agree with the argument you presented, but the majority of libertarians, as best I can tell, are not hardcore or even moderate anarcho-capitalists. They support laws against theft and fraud because they believe in the protection of the right of property, which in turn means the government has a legitimate role in protecting that right, just as it does in protecting rights of life and speech and so on.
For a decent introduction on libertarian ideas try this: http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philosophy.of.Liberty.swf