Well, that was a crap-ton of half truths and falsehoods. I’ll just highlight a few:
“If we boil down the libertarian ideology to its fundamentals, they essentially believe that we should have as minimal government as possible.”
— True. Is this a problem?
“ Government protections of civil rights? Zip.”
— Dumbest understanding ever. Do libertarians reject the civil rights act? Yes, broadly because they believe the Constitution covers it. Libertarians believe that government absolutely should protect civil rights. The disagreement is about what constitutes “civil rights.” You believe that the government can limit discrimination by private individuals. Libertarians do not because that is a limitation on personal liberty (and silly… all humans discriminate all the time… did you just allow anyone to be your date? No, you discriminated.) Freedom of association is key to all other freedoms. The government absolutely should not be able to discriminate. It must maintain equal protection under the law (part of the Constitution, fyi).
“Government regulations of large, unsustainable financial institutions that have already reeked havoc on our economy? Nope.”
— Also dumb. Some libertarians want no regulations, but most are ok with some. But libertarians recognize that most regulations do nothing but help big business while squashing the little business and do almost nothing to protect the consumer. Pull your head out.
“ Government policies that preserve the environment and protect our natural resources? Zilch.”
— See previous answer. A few libertarians would say zilch, but very few. Many resources that can’t be owned must be protected. But most libertarians recognize the truth of the tragedy of the commons and believe private ownership is one of the best ways of conservation. Other un-own-able resources need some protections. And Johnson has expressly said he does want some protections.
“On paper, Johnson and Sanders share similar views on some social and civil rights topics, but when you dive into the overarching libertarian ideology that informs Johnson’s worldview, we find that inalienable, bodily, human rights are not always protected for their own sake; if these rights are being infringed upon by the federal government, Johnson may be the first to protect the vulnerable, but if individual states enact the very same tyrannical, rights-abusing, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, privacy-abridging policies, according to his worldview, he’d have no problem with the individual states taking charge and protecting their “sovereignty”.”
— Also absurd. Libertarians believe in Constitutional individual rights. Yes, they believe those are best cared for by the states, but when a state rams up against individual rights, it loses according to the constitution and libertarians. States should have sovereignty over the federal government to govern on almost all things, but states cannot create laws and policies that are anathema to the Constitution, which is a document that protects personal liberty and civil rights. Try looking it up.