The liberty to murder others, for example, or own human slaves?
This would really depend upon the form of libertarianism we are talking about. One of the main critcisms of anarcho-capitalism is that it would lead to a situation where child labour was brought back, or the buying and selling of children. Other strands, such as classical liberalism, allow for the existence of the state in a limited form and for laws to be passed to prevent such practices whilst maximising individual liberty. The US constitution is the best example of classical liberalism.
You would need to provide more evidence for this assertion, imo.
Sure. In this passage we can see that Buddha allowed for capitalism and preached for the moral obligations of one to the other within capitalistic class relations:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ksw0.html
In five ways should workers and servants as the lower direction be respected by an employer: by allocating work according to aptitude, providing wages and food, looking after the sick, sharing special treats, and giving reasonable time off work. And, workers and servants so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: being willing to start early and finish late when necessary, taking only what is given, doing work well, and promoting a good reputation. In this way, the lower direction is protected and made peaceful and secure.
I doubt modern libertarianism believes in non-violence. For example, the slogan of the French Revolution was Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité but those preaching this slogan started chopping off more heads than ISIS.
Non-violence except in self defense. They call it the non aggression principle (NAP). Its actually the cornerstone of ancaps moral philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Ethics
Buddhism offers equal metta to the diversity of people.
In this regard it is egalitarian, yes.
Also, if there is hierarchy, how can there be liberty, since hierarchy also infers social power of some upon others?
One man being richer than me, or being in a more powerful position than me, does not negate my own liberty. The only thing which could negate my liberty is the state, or being dead. Under a system such as the US I would be as free as the billionaire.
For example, the private ownership of farmland, that defined European feudal capitalism, deprived people of the liberty to farm land for themselves. Marxism arose from this Capitalist disempowerment of the masses & then Nazism arose due to Marxism. Your dispute with Marxist egalitarianism sounds similar to Nazism to me.
You are confused here. What you are describing is feudalism. That isn't capitalism, although capitalism existed at the time but in small pockets. Many of the liberals formed their arguments against what you describe and promoted capitalism instead. One of the main differences between fedualism and capitalism is free choice and fair exchange of goods and services. Also wage labour. The serf had no choice, there was no fair exchange of goods and services and he did not receive a wage.
Not sure how you got Nazism from my arguments
Most libertarians support sex-drugs-&-rock-n-roll, which I doubt Buddhism supports.
Some do, some don't. All they call for is for individual liberty and for people to be free to decide for themselves. Their hedonism or lack thereof is separate from their arguments for liberty. I argue for liberty because people should be free to make their own choices and mistakes in life, without others or the state telling them what to do. To me that isn't ethical. The state should only get involved to punish those who break contracts, who steal, rape, murder etc.
Just because some Western ideologies share one or more characteristics with Buddhism does not mean they share all characteristics in common, such as feminism, which the same as Buddhism supports non-discrimination against women but unlike Buddhism supports women working in prostitution & pornography. Feminism is essentially a political & economic ideology where as Buddhism is a spiritual & moral system. They are different, similar to Buddhism supporting women to become bhikkhunis and Nazism supporting women to make lamp-shades out of human skin in a concentration camp. Buddhism, Nazism & Feminism support female participation but what they support women doing is different.
Once again, I said that libertarianism is compatible with Buddha-Dhamma. I didn't say they were one in the same.
This is a good example of why Buddhism is not the same as Libertarianism. Buddhism does not support gambling. Buddhism does not oppose the State punishing people for crime. This is very clear in the suttas, where Buddha with equanimity said a person can be executed by the king for breaking a precept. The scriptures do not show the Buddha actively opposing the death penalty for crime but accepting the State may have capital punishment.
You are completely missing the point. Libertarianism doesnt argue for gambling. It argues for individual liberty and for the freedom of the person to chose themselves. Being libertarian ≠ being pro-gambling. The alternative of course if that you and the state tell people what to do and how to behave. We all know the pitfalls there. Libertarians are also not against the state punishing people if they break a contract, or if they attack another citizen. Once again, refer to the NAP.