http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/world/made-usa-hard-labor-...
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/world/made-usa-hard-labor-...
No libertarian I know, me included, would object to (rather, we would support) massive penalties for any entity that engaged in such behavior.
Additionally, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay are the exact opposite of anything/anyone a libertarian would endorse.
I really encourage you to learn about Libertarianism because if you really believe Saipan 20 years ago was a "paradise of libertarian economic governance" you are farrrr off the mark.
I've been both a conservative and libertarian myself in the past, and I would agree that these outcomes are not considered desirable by adherents of those viewpoints, but unfortunately this sort of thing is very often the result of the policies and philosophy they thought would make everyone's lives better.
My two cents. Or if I'm more honest, Thomas Frank's two cents. http://www.amazon.com/The-Wrecking-Crew-Conservatives-Govern... Good read, that.
I am only replying for the sake of people who may not have been introduced to Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is absolutely reliant on property rights and contract rights. Both of which must be enforced by a government and were violated in the example above. The huge penalties would be levied by a court.
The regulation that most Libertarians oppose is more akin to the current situation. There are vast regulations on Wall Street (and resources expended putting them in place) but when rampant fraud becomes evident not a single prosecution is made. In the meantime, the barrier to entry is raised and competition is stifled with further meaningless regulation as the Government sells it self to special interests (while claiming "reform"). Other examples: illegal wars, illegal torture, illegal surveillance. No one held accountable.
Your post amounts to "you're against meaningless/hurtful regulation? anarchy doesnt work!!!"