Not that I'm advocating anarchism, but you misunderstand what anarchism is if you think that it doesn't involve complex systems. The dream of anarchism is to have a stateless society, where there's no top-down control, not one without complex social institutions. In fact, an anarchist society would require more complex systems in order to function.
That's the same fantasy like extreme libertarianism. How do you build a power grid? How do you build national defense? How do conflicts get resolved? I have never heard a real answer to those questions.
>Power companies are responsible for their own infrastructure.
How exactly do you build infrastructure without government powers such as eminent domain, or without inserting easements for utility access?
A libertarian landowner could simply refuse to allow utility lines to cross their property and thus cutoff others from access, or require expensive routing around their property. Roads, power/sewer/water/gas lines, phone/cable/data - all would be at the whim of landowners large and small as to whether it would even exist.
There is no realistic way for a private company to negotiate access between them and every single landowner they'd need to in order to build infrastructure that serves a sizeable population. Hence government "coercion" is required.
In Spanish regions controlled by anarchists during the Spanish Civil War (a country which at the time had a lot of dirt poor farmers and a lot less large landowners), landowners were given the choice between working their lands collectively, or keeping only the land they could work themselves. That's not the same thing as Ayn Rand-style libertarianism.
I...don't know where you get the idea that libertarianism is about knocking everyone else down.
Perhaps if you focus entirely on removing welfare, it looks like that. And then, I (and other libertarians) believe that a Basic Income Guarantee would be extrenely useful, and a BIG would cover more people than current welfare systems.
Or perhaps you think that deregulating business will lead to massive monopolies, ignoring that the regulations you defend make it harder for new companies to enter a market (thus making it easier to hold a monopoly).
It's not like there haven't been regulations that cause more harm than good, though--for instance, regulations on pollution that only apply to new powerplants, leaving old ones untouched.
Libertarianism treats regulation like engineering: Simpler is better, and the ideal solution is the simplest; complicated solutions add more points of failure, which leads to a more broken result.
