I actually sort of agree with that last one but not as a general critique of libertarians but as a critique of any right wingers who think multinational corporations would have any sort of checks and balances with the NAP alone.
You can't criticize commies for thinking their government would be magically moral and decent and then turn around and do the same for corporations and companies.
I'm not a friend of big corporations at all, but the left-wing "anti-libertarian" argument is still invalid.
Here's the key thing it ignores: the big corporations get most of the power and wealth
excusively due to government patronage.
This means that if you (let's not go 100% ancap here) reduce the government to something minimal that stays
out of the marketplace
entirely, the big corporations will actually lose most of the power. In fact, most of them will go belly-up within a year. Check it out: the decline of small (typically family-owned) businesses and the rise of vast megacorps goes
hand-in-hand with the massive growth of government.
Big government and big business are one club. All notions of using the government to curtail the power of the megacorps is an illusion at best, and more probably a deliberate lie.
So, here's the lesson: there
is no either-or. The false dichotomy of "big government is needed OR big business will reign freely!" is a trap meant to deceive you. If you weaken the government, you weaken the megacorps. If you strengthen government (
no matter what your intentions are), you will empower the megacorps.
So who's the utopian? The guy who sees the government protect the megacorps every single time and still thinks we need government to protect us from megacorps? Or the guy who sees that and concludes we should dismantle the government because it's obviously the weapon of our enemy?