I've often seen people -- usually not libertarians -- argue that some supposedly "authoritarian" or "collectivist" action within some institution is inconsistent with true libertarian principles. Doug Berman's comments about my experiment with banning laptops are one example, but I've seen many, in many contexts.
I generally find those arguments quite unpersuasive. Libertarianism -- even a relatively mild presumptive libertarianism such as the one to which I adhere -- is a philosophy related to the proper limits on government power, especially the government's power when acting as sovereign. It tells us little about the right course of action for nongovernmental actors, or for actors within institutions (such as workplaces, universities, and the like) that happen to be run by the government.
Consider, for instance, dress codes or other appearance regulations. Libertarians, even squishy ones, would surely condemn laws banning baggy pants or nose piercings (with the possible exception of some minimal nudity bans). But they would insist on the right of private institutions -- restaurants, workplaces, schools, and the like -- to impose such regulations on their patrons, workers, or students. And my sense is that most libertarians wouldn't even have much of an ethical view about whether such institutions should impose such regulations. Some might think the regulations reflect a pointless obsession with appearances, or unduly restrict people's self-expression. Others might think the regulations are quite reasonable; but in any case, there's no inherent libertarian view on such regulations.
What about such dress or appearance regulations in government-run institutions, such as government workplaces, government-run schools, and the like? Some libertarians might be more troubled by such rules, because the government is involved in enacting them. But my sense is that many might find them to be just fine, if there's good reason to think that the rules improve the efficiency of the institution. The government as employer is not the same to libertarians as the government as sovereign. (K-12 schools are more complex, since there is some government coercion there, but even there my sense is that many libertarians would find dress codes permissible.)
More broadly, many libertarians are happy to participate -- and run -- institutions that are "collectivist" (from families to religious communities) and "authoritarian" (such as traditional workplaces that are not run on democratic lines, or hierarchical churches). It's true that some libertarians might not like most such institutions, but most are just fine with them. Again, there's no inherent libertarian view on the subject.
Now there might be situations where for reasons either of constitutional law, professional ethics, or perceived efficiency (especially efficiency in the use of government money, something that to libertarians might have an ethical dimension), libertarians may oppose certain kinds of restrictions even when the government as sovereign is not involved. Campus speech codes are an example: Many (though not all) libertarians may oppose them even at many private schools, on the theory that such speech codes undermine the atmosphere of freedom needed for effective teaching and research. But that stems from a certain view about what works well in a university, and a view about what university life ought to be like, and not from general libertarian principles. And still more libertarians likely think that speech codes at public universities are unconstitutional, but that probably has to do with their sense of the First Amendment at universities, and not from broader libertarian reasoning that would be applicable to speech at all institutions -- for instance, I imagine that many libertarians are just fine with at least certain kinds of civility rules in most workplaces, including government-run ones.
So if someone wants to argue that some policy in some institution -- especially a government-operation institution -- is unsound, or should be seen as unsound under libertarian principles, that's just fine. But saying that it's "authoritarian" or "collectivist" and libertarians should therefore presumptively oppose it strikes me as not much of an argument.