One of the Youtube video's of John Galt's speech begins with Sen Fred Thompson speechifying:

"Our country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than any other country in the history of the world. We are steeped in the tradition of honor, and sacrifice for the greater good. I believe we are once again..."

So Thompson invokes sacrificing individuals for "the greater good" which in this context is the freedom of other people.

I remember another speech with a subtle difference:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

For Patton, the priority wasn't sacrificing one's own people for the freedom of others, but sacrificing others for the freedom of one's own people.

Mind you, he wasn't a libertarian:
"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of bullshit."

I disagree with this, as well. The German and Russian armies were juggernauts. They fought expertly as teams, and, the Russians in particular, managed to butcher millions of their own troops this way. But when it got down to the nut-cutting, when units were cut off and still had to be effective, it was American-style individuality that came to the fore and made the difference.

And my favorite poet, Kipling, had yet another, but similar take on it:

"Now, this is the faith that the White Men hold--
When they build their homes afar--
"Freedom for ourselves and freedom for our sons
And, failing freedom, War."
We have proved our faith--bear witness to our faith,
Dear souls of freemen slain!
Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
To prove their faith again!"

(Song of the White Men - http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/ki...)

The subtle difference is, of course, that, imo, you fight for you and yours' freedom, not for the freedom of others who may neither want nor understand it.

Now, Thompson's been touted as a "conservative", when in reality, like Bush, McCain, and other purported "conservatives", he's really simply another progressive.
Perhaps the greatest revelation in politics in the modern era is the recent realization, which comes too late, that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not synonymous.

The idea that there are people out there who do not want freedom may seem radical, but think about it a minute. Think about the popularity of Obamacare, and government dependency programs. Democracies are almost as rare in the world as are republics, and the most common form of government to day is oligarchy under the disguise of monarchy or democracy. If, as the Founding Fathers maintained, governments rule by the consent of the governed, then there should have already been many more popular uprisings and rebellions in the world. If the Mullahs of Iran are as unpopular with the people of Iran as some in the press would have us believe, how could the Iranian military stand against the people? And having been taken from the people... how could they be used against their own friends and family?
The Egyptian people, and particularly the military, we were told, loved America and wanted democracy. Yet what happened in Egypt? The undemocratic Moslem Brotherhood got into power, and when they were deposed by the military, the military maintained control, they didn't turn it over to a democratically elected government (perhaps because, if they had, the Moslem Brotherhood would be back in power, thus reinforcing my assertion that most people in the world don't want freedom).