Firstly, as I understand it, the west does not have a classical liberal (as in Libertas; not modern liberal or neoliberalism) democracy, we are now 180 degrees from that and our current liberal parties (democratic party, even many of the faux-alternative parties) are strongly statist in the sense they are closer to the modern communist ideal. The definition of classical liberal ideals are often quite ambiguous, whereas libertarians are far more practical. The libertarian principles might be seen as a more radical classical liberal, but in actuality classical liberals never defined how the social structure of society should work because it was its own antithesis.

By giving the individual the right to self-determination and above all, the principles of liberty it surely leaves the question open as to if that would be achieved by a big centralized, benevolent Government or no Government at all ( natural human society without rules; anarchy). Due to this ambiguity, one is unable to decipher anything but the basic of principles, which can be interpreted several ways.

Libertarians move towards a more practical proposition; that is the ideal of a minimum Government needed to uphold common laws, while retaining maximum liberty and self determination.

The political system in the West, which is close to modern fascism or communism in its scope, is why it is called Neo liberal. Neo liberalists are really fascists (look at fascist definition prior to 1980's). The economic plan adopted by the National Socialist party was Keynesian ( big public spending programme which meant eventual expansionism that could be utilized for rearmament) but the modern west is Neo Keynesian which means expansionism by large corporations and especially centralized banks. So, we have a strange hybrid of this show of prosperity which was common to communist and Facist statism, such as city sky scrapers and events like the Olympics to create the illusion of high ideals of mind and body.

It is a society of mock individualism, mock freedom and especially mock democracy but don't tell your fellow mate that their bound to scoff at you.

In the United States (not to be confused with the Republic of the United States of America) we the people are plagued with an ever expanding Soft faced Facism or Communism in which control is by the very rich (plutocracy), and within that plutocracy comprises a tightly knit oligarchy (read the Princeton Study which investigated the socioeconomic, legislative, judicial, executive branches as well as the social aspects of governance and the US citizenries participation in government over a 30 year period. Their study concluded that the US is an oligarchy).

Within this plutocratic oligarchy is a crony-corportocracy or complete corporate control over all branches of government; in congress for example, cronyism is defined therein. Basically, powerful corporate and banking bodies and their amalgamation with Government.

Concerning government regulations. That monopolies, the consolidation of omnipotent power that is detrimental to the common person and infringes on their liberty and livelihood should NOT be regulated is most certainly not the classical libertarians stance. Many neoliberals claim a free market is good, many libertarians also claim, the freer the market the freer the people, however, the neoliberal's definition of a free market is much different than that of a Libertarians. For the neoliberal believes in deregulation, even at the expense of liberty and freedom for the common person. That very deregulation could also cause future environmental damage, constitutional infringements, wealth inequality, higher possibilities of economic collapses, increased monopolization powers, etc,. Libertarians seek a happy medium. That is that government regulation is needed to curtail creditor deregulation if it imposes any austerity measures that reduce liberty and freedom of self-determination.

The only problem is it's most likely the big money, the corportocracy itself, that writes the regulations and to their favor. So, we lose here too.

Moreover, the economics of the corportocracy have socialistic tendencies in that the production, distribution and exchange is owned by THIER community, not ours; their coportocracy, their plutocracy, their coming technocracy. In reality, we have a mixed system with elements of modern communism, in that property ownership is being placed into the hands of the state, not YOUR private hands. Modern in modern communism implies the once private ownership, such as the home you own, is now in the hands of the state and its corporate handlers. The future goal is a complete eradication of private property and the setting up of a half-baked welfare state. So, these principles are in direct contrast to classical communism or true Marxism.