I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs.

In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount.

As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country.

All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth.

As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment.

Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist.

WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest.

All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom.

Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere.

I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.