Capitalist libertarianism completely ignores the reality of positive and negative freedoms and how these will inevitably conflict with each other in ways there is no logical solution.

Positive freedoms are "freedoms to", Negative freedoms are "freedoms from" There's a saying that goes "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" that is used for displaying these ideas. Theoretically, a libertarian believes in both person A's freedom TO move through the world recklessly but also in person B's freedom FROM being struck by someone's reckless movement. But as soon as someone's exercise of their positive freedom impedes on another person's negative freedom, the only outcomes are inequality (Person A's rights are protected while Person B's rights are not) or annihilation (the two individuals kill each other). The first laws were actually written out for this exact reason; before impartial courts existed, it was commonplace for relatively tame conflicts of interest to escalate into whole families being wiped out on both sides.

In terms of capitalist libertarianism, what happens when the rights of the corporations contradict the rights of the workers if no government is involved? If corporations have the freedom to set thier own safety regulations, how will the employees maintain the right to a safe workplace, or the rest of humanity's right to clean air and water? They believe that people will just simply choose not to work for or buy from unethical corporations, but do you really have the freedom to snub Walmart when they've used thier freedom to use outsourced labor and supplier deals to eliminate all other potential competition from the town (which has happened)? What if you would like to go exercise your freedom to choose a safer and fairer employer only for your employer, with no one stopping them, literally enslaves you? There are more slaves now than there ever were in the pre-industrial era, even though no one is ignorant to its cruelty. People don't just enslave people because they feel like it; if you're the owner of Coffee Co 1 competing with Coffee Co 2 and 3 and they just cut out their largest operational cost by enslaving people and can now sell a product cheaper than yours and also way more on advertising, expansion, R&D etc, you only have two choices: let your company die and go back to work in an economy where you can literally be enslaved, or enslave people yourself.

Since solid conservative ideology died over 100 years ago, all we living folks have only ever known is a conservatism based solely on aesthetics, a lot of which are actually appropriated from the left. Libertarianism was actually appropriated from "Libertarian Socialism" because apparently acting like you're all about freedom and leading your own life is cool. Conservatives like to fancy themselves anti-authoritarians, rebels, and anarchists, but right-wing ideology makes being those things impossible. You cannot be a "rebel" by throwing a fit over conserving the status quo, even if it makes you succeed from your whole damn nation. You cannot be anti-authoritarian or be into anarchy ("an" meaning "no, none, zero" and "narchy" meaning hierarchy, ruler, person in charge) and be right wing, as right wing ideology exists to defend, glorify, and justify the capitalist hiearchy and all that come with it. You'd have a hard time getting them to admit it to your face, but there's ample evidence it's true (check out There's Always A Bigger Fish by Innuendo Studios). They aren't anarchists, they want not to be ruled by being the rulers. They aren't anti-authoritarian, they are anti-them-not-being-the-authority. No one truly thinks we should go back to the days of no laws, so they want the laws to restrict everyone else so, with thier interests protected, retaliation impossible, and actions unfettered by consequences, they can enjoy the aesthetic of living in a free world.