You didn't, and that's not the issue. The problem is that you point to conservative behaviours and call them Libertarian-- this is the issue. The gilded age did indeed have regulation, regulation of the kind that made it so the police could be the cronies of a corporate power whose workers were on strike. This is a very different thing than no regulation. The problem is that you assume certain regulations qualify as being no regulations at all, which is very misrepresentative. Much like how liberals outcry conservative military spending as a budgetary issue, but deny such an issue with the entitlements, and vice versa.
That isn't true, and is logically fallacious. You can't retain a monopoly unless it is physically impossible for a new business to enter an industry-- something which can only happen by and through regulations. The gilded age shows big companies with small competition. While this is an evil which has a real source, this is not an evil in the sense you think, nor is it a monopoly.
Fair, regarding hands off approaches being a policy. Your latter claim is inaccurate though; the Libertarian platform is strongly opposed to how money-controlled politics is, not to mention other issues such as gerrymandering. You clearly think the "libertarians" in the republican party represent all libertarians, which is false.
Excuse me, but I was attempting to specify a particular claim I hadn't directly addressed yet there. Yes, libertarianism is lassez faire with economics. But that doesn't mean they oppose the existence of any regulations at all. Your accusation of me implying you equated anarchism with libertarianism is strange, as I do no such thing.