I will answer seriously, but i must reprimand: you open up a post with a question, and your first comment already scorns and shows contempt for one of the two possible answers.

If you want to truly hear the other side, you can expose your opinion as well as separate the issue at hand, being more inviting.

Also the question itself lacks specificity. Is saying "No" meaning that you need to have a centralized market a.k.a. communism? Because if you are asking "Is communism the best for the public" you will get a very different answers.

Be that as it may, I will still try to answer some points you raise here:

> It is a proven fact that most rich people are rich for the simple reason that they were born into a rich family, while most poor people will remain poor throughout their lives simply because they were born into a poor family

This is a given, but its not necessarily bad. In communism, everyone is born poor!
We all agree that we want the best for our own children, and thats precisely what happens when you give your kid a house, a college education, etc. That some are better taken care than others is not a drain on society in anyway, its actually great.

> Imagine the world where education, healthcare, public safety, criminal justice, national security and immigration are all up for sale(although it’s already happening in some countries...). This makes our level of inequality worse than ever because the more money can buy, the more affluence matters.

All the things you say are always better for people with money than for people without. Literally every single one. But that doesn't mean it makes inequality worse, it can actually be making it less. A rich man that needs a security guard incurs an expense that goes to someone that wouldn't have that job otherwise. Or pays for a doctor that will devise a treatment that will be useful for other patients as well, etc.

Regarding the insistent of inequality, i'd give you this thought exercise: do you prefer everyone had 2 apples, or everyone had 3 apples and one person had 1 million apples?

> What we need to do is not to discuss about the extreme logic between libertarianism and conservatism, but to decide what money should and should NOT be able to buy.

That's your opinion. I personally do not trust governments with my money, so i don't like them deciding what to do or not to do with my own labor. At least, libertarianism is not forcing you to do anything.

> Seems to me that free market believer doesn't realize that there IS a regulation that they value because they take its legitimacy for granted. For example, there are many things that we are not allowed to trade. Human slaves, human organs, electoral votes, government job and legal decisions, university places or uncertified medicines although they were legal before.

Oh boy. Free markets is about the liberty of exchange between a buyer and a seller, not the absence of law. Libertarianism is be very well against slavery.
Human organs is kind of interesting, and votes also (i personally think votes should be able to be bought/sold, and can only imagine we think ill of that because of things from the past).
But overall, the free markets is precisely about the rule of law and the absence of violence and coercion.

> On top of drawing the boundary of the market, government needs to design the rule to prevent corporations from behaving unethically. History tells us that corporation behave unethically without interference of the government. Actually, we have been fighting for that. Thanks to our ancestors, in a labor market, it is not allowed to have a child labor, and a minimum wage is protected by the government.

I once read about the case of street car companies complaining against segregation law, because it was just not good business. Jim crow's laws were designed by government, against the interests of corporations!

As I mentioned in the before post, libertarianism and free market ideologues generally agree on the need of laws.

Labor laws is a can of worms for a discussion at this level, it can take a long time to discuss: its been argued many times that minimum wage harms the poorest, and i can assure you there are definite externalities to unions and syndicates.