The problem isn't so much governments or corporations per se, but unaccountable concentrations of wealth and power.
The more concentrated that wealth and power becomes, and the more unaccountable the possessors of it become, the more open to abuse it becomes, without significant consequence to the abusers.
Most libertarians might be against such an unchecked concentration of wealth and power in the form of governments; some few might also object to it in the form of corporations; but which of them are against its concentration in the hands of private individuals?
Yet private individuals can abuse their wealth and power just as easily as can governments or corporations. As long as that wealth and power is not concentrated in the hands of too few individuals, it could be argued that they'd compete with one another and provide a check on one another's power.
But, to my knowledge, nothing in the libertarian ideology would preclude or oppose any individual or small group of individuals hoarding the overwhelming majority of wealth and power for themselves. In fact, such concentration of wealth and power would likely be a direct result of the implementation of libertarianism.
This is why laissez-faire economic aspects of libertarianism must be opposed.
Most libertarians always oppose power over others: "No one may initiate the use of force against another" does not make exceptions for individuals. In fact, they oppose government specifically because it claims the right to use force against its victims/citizens.
I don't think you've addressed the grandparent's point. Money is power over others; it is a claim on future production.
If you don't think money causes people to do things, or that increasingly large amounts of money cause increasingly large pressures on people to do things, I don't think you're being honest. Worming out along the routes of every transaction being free and mutually beneficial is balderdash; tell that to the starving man in the street when you wave some bread under his nose, that he's free to choose.
The more concentrated that wealth and power becomes, and the more unaccountable the possessors of it become, the more open to abuse it becomes, without significant consequence to the abusers.
Most libertarians might be against such an unchecked concentration of wealth and power in the form of governments; some few might also object to it in the form of corporations; but which of them are against its concentration in the hands of private individuals?
Yet private individuals can abuse their wealth and power just as easily as can governments or corporations. As long as that wealth and power is not concentrated in the hands of too few individuals, it could be argued that they'd compete with one another and provide a check on one another's power.
But, to my knowledge, nothing in the libertarian ideology would preclude or oppose any individual or small group of individuals hoarding the overwhelming majority of wealth and power for themselves. In fact, such concentration of wealth and power would likely be a direct result of the implementation of libertarianism.
This is why laissez-faire economic aspects of libertarianism must be opposed.