It's very observable in the US how some people reduce what it means to be left wing to social issues; it's how they're defining it for the most part. It's especially pronounced among those advocating and (presumably) voting for neoliberal candidates.

Economic policy hasn't really been front and center in that very dominant circle of political actors, for which I blame plutocratic indoctrination, which is trying to keep up the Democratic party's position as a neoliberal pseudo-left wing spoiler in order to divide the vote away from real (anti-plutocratic) left wing options.

Thus it doesn't come as a surprise that some people on the right perceive the left as only being about social issues, and little else. After all, the Republican party isn't all that different: They don't focus on economic policy that much either, except when it's about tax breaks (for the haves), and the vague notion of ending regulations. But at the end of the day, they just mostly end up doing what the Democrats would have done anyway, just less of the good and more of the bad, they do it harder, faster, and with some additional (bad) things sprinkled in. Exceptions notwithstanding.

About left wing libertarianism: It does exist, you just don't acknowledge it because your definition of freedom is fallacious (you'd see it differently if it weren't). Now, I'm not an anarchist, but a social democrat. However, when you call anarcho-communists "kooky" and imply that they're something to be denounced, whilst you peddle your quasi-fundamentalist brand of right wing libertarianism, I can't help but wonder why the pot is calling the kettle black.