Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet.

Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory.

Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.

Hang out with a bunch of libertarians and eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian.

There are various types (or degrees or flavors or something) of libertarianism. Minarchy [0] is one type, but doesn't seem to be the most vocal from what I've seen. There's even libertarian socialism [1]. The most vocal type seems to be anarcho capitalism [2] which is pretty much the no government whatsover group.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Libertarianism is a difficult philosophy for most people to accept, as it relies on order arising from chaos. (Even though all life on Earth is order arising from chaos.) Most people feel more comfortable with a law that forces their desired outcome.

> eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian

As will adherents to every political persuasion. Some even go so far as to violently purge their impure members.

Regardless of what people call themselves, when they say things like "libertarianism means no government" and "libertarianism allows people to sell themselves into slavery" and "libertarians allow people to sell baby food laced with poison" they are not a credible source.

I have seen people who call themselves libertarians openly arguing that it should be legal for companies to sell poison in food—I don't believe baby food came up specifically, but that's a purely emotional addition, and shouldn't change the overall argument—because the free market would work it out.

You may not think they are credible, or libertarians, but I'll ask you not to deny my lived experience just to support your personal idea of what a libertarian is or should be.

I've heard some Democrats argue for some pretty awful things. I dismiss them as not credible representatives of the DNC.

Nobody thinks it's good for poisoned food to be sold.

The libertarian argument that you're almost certainly mischaracterizing there is about the pandora's box that is opened by allowing the government to decide what is or is not "poison" (which is of course an absurdly emotionally charged word picked by their opponents). Consider that some governments want to restrict sugary food on health grounds. Sugar isn't a poison but once you accept the principle that governments can ban companies from selling "poisoned" food, the definition of poison immediately comes under attack and sooner or later means almost nothing like what you'd expect.

That is a good point, but I was specifically talking about putting unambiguously deadly poison in baby food.

There are always going to be grey areas, such as the line between "safe" and "unsafe", and Libertarianism doesn't provide any guidance on where that line should be. The government's role is to define that line, and the courts to interpret it as part of checks and balances.

Do 'actual libertarians' get to control who gets to call themselves a libertarian?

Michigan politicians that like to label themselves as libertarian supported socializing the cost of vehicle accidents. Of course repealing an insurance mandate is pro 'personal freedom' on the surface, but in context of reality, all it does is transfer costs from a user fee to Medicaid, which is not libertarian at all.

Free speech is a Libertarian principle, so people can claim they are whatever floats their boat.