Mr. Carrico, are you saying that if a progressive activist campaigning for morphological freedom (freedom to use recreational drugs, freedom to use the morning-after pill or get an abortion, freedom to request a doctor's assistance to commit suicide, etc) has exhausted all the human and financial resources in the progressive circles he has access to he should not ally himself with libertarian activists simply because they are libertarians? I understand that there are technoscience questions on which progressives and libertarians are at odds but can't and shouldn't they work together on those on which they are like-minded? Isn't winning the cause more important than making sure our allies share our groupthink?
It's a rule of thumb, not a fundamentalist article of faith. On particular campaigns one can and will ally with all sorts of people, of course -- because, among other things, people incarnate multiple, partial, and contradictory identifications after all, and also because people are usually persuadable whatever their foolishness on this or that particular issue.
However, we're living in the shit stinking ruins of market fundamentalist ideology. Your scenario presumes a circumstance in which progressive resources are exhausted but somehow there are vital swarms of well-meaning libertopians around to pick up the slack. You'll forgive me, but I find the terms of the thought-experiment a tad... fanciful. Not to put too fine a point on it, the remaining dead enders I know of who are still insisting on the obvious righteousness of the simplistic self-serving pieties they swallowed from Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are too fucking stupid to waste serious time on in a world that isn't buying corporate-militarist bullshit anymore and is instead clamoring for change. If you want to devote your time to spoon feeding these guys on your dime, be my guest.
More seriously, however, I do think that there are obvious and important differences that make a difference between left and right perspectives on technodevelopmental questions. Declarations of a genial catholicism of political outlook in the names of shared devotion to "technological" outcomes tends in my view disastrously to evacuate one's technodevelopmental perspective of actual critical purchase.
If, for example, you want to defend consensual prosthetic self-determination (implied by your examples of access to safe abortion, relatively harmless recreational drugs, and well-regulated assisted suicide) you need to think long and hard about what that word "consensual" means and what it depends on. For me, in a fairly typical progressive construal of the matter, consent is more legible and legitimate as such the more it is substantiated by access to reliable public information, basic income, healthcare, and education. Your libertopian "allies" may seem superficially to share my commitment to "morphological freedom" (I prefer the phrase "consensual prosthetic self-determination," but that's no biggie) but if for them this "freedom" amounts to the primarily consumerist, primarily negative liberty that treats "market transactions" as non-coercive by fiat whatever the terms that misinform and duress them, then it turns out these libertopian "allies" actually weren't substantially allies at all, and you only thought they were because you were being sloppy and superficial in your thinking for whatever reasons.
Now, if you want to dismiss this sort of critique as "groupthink" on my part, by all means do so. The phrase I would use in preference would be "critical intelligence."