Democracy is so flawed, one of its flaws is that it leads to a large state as the people keep voting for more stuff.
Whilst we may all be equal in the eyes of God we are not all equal in our attributes, so how is it that we all have an equal vote? majority rule is a dictatorship of the mob. How is it that 50.1% of people can impose their collective will on the rest?
Democracy the God That failed
Book Here: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspectives-Democratic/dp/0765808684
Other Red-Pill Articles: https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/05/15/the-jewish-origins-of-communism/
> no, that would mean, there are market opportunities to improve something there
> That would be feudalism or maybe some sort of pure version of utilitarianism like Mill.
What I described is what many prominent right-libertarian thinkers, for Rothbard to Mises. Pretty much the entire austrian school of economics really. I can get you specific relevant quotes from any of the above if you need them.
I do agree with you though that a market completely free of government interference would rapidly turn into fuedalism, but that's not the baseline libertarian position.
Regarding the system you're describing, I would wager that the regulations you call for alone create a market that isn't truly free, but also where does the government obtain the funds to carry out this role? If it's through taxation then we're again drifting away from a free market and we bump into that taxation is theft bit too, if you believe in that. These not-for-profit government services as well, you're describing social services and or a public option, again, no longer a free market. Also, what's to stop especially rich companies from buying out the government and using these regulations and taxes that you're cool with for their benefit?
I mean, what you're describing is essentially just Keynesian social democracy.
> There is no social Darwinism here, govt ensures base survival and rights of people.
Social darwinism needn't be life or death, just a sorting of society through competition with the idea that the best folks would end up on top and the worst at the bottom, that the most innovative, intelligent, and productive companies will overtake the others. The wealth the CEOs of that company obtain is justified and right, and so is the poverty of those who go fail and go bankrupt. The market working as intended.
It's a pretty big tent. It's hard to point to one place.
There's a good community here in r/DarkEnlightenment. The learning curve for DE (AKA "neoreaction") is pretty steep, so perhaps a good place for the libertarian to start is From Mises to Carlyle.
There's also Hoppe. Many libertarians get skeptical about democracy and venture beyond libertarianism via him. Even Rothbard, in his later writings, started going in a somewhat Hoppean direction. Maybe try Democracy: The God That Failed. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is another along these lines.
Bertrand de Jouvenel is another gateway drug. He's a classical liberal whose description of how power works utterly undermines classical liberal ideas of sociology and anthropology. Try his On Power, and then follow it up with The Patron Theory of Politics for a tour through the illiberal consequences of his ideas.
Jonathan Bowden was a great English intellectual who gave a series of lectures on various illiberal thinkers such as Heidegger, Evola, Carlyle, Spengler, Pound, Nietzsche, and even Marx and other socialist thinkers. He functions as a sort of TL;DR for the illiberal right, and so makes for a very good introduction. His lectures are engaging and can be found on Youtube, but probably the best of them is a Q&A he gave about his own views.
Huemer is the most persuasive to me currently, simply by defeating all rival statist positions so completely (and without requiring you to accept some universal moral system), but if you're coming from a monarchist perspective, I would be derelict in my duties not to emphatically recommend Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. He positions enlightened absolute monarchism as a solution only 2nd best to his "natural order" private property system (market anarchism). His perspective on shortening time preference, degeneration of morals and ethics (decivilization), revisionist history, critiques of democracy, etc. as the western world moved from monarchy to democracy are recommended.
Democracy, you say?