First, anti-monopoly regulation is not noncontroversial. Second, why do you think corporations are something other than a mode of cooperation of real people? When you are a customer - you cooperate with other people by exchange of money for the service. When you are a capitalist, you cooperate with others by paying them for the services upfront before the product is sold. When you are employee, you cooperate by renting your labor for money. And so on. Why do some people think they are entitled to intervene in the other persons' cooperation?
Anti-monopoly regulation is pretty noncontroversial. Libertarianism is, despite its popularity in places like HN, quite a fringe movement.
Do you think that the consequences of two entities cooperation is limited to those two entities?
Further, and I'm sure you'll vehemently disagree with me, I don't think people or corporations are islands. I don't resent owing society some cooperation, and I have no problem with corporations being in the same boat - more so, in fact, because as concentrators of power such regulation becomes more necessary.
I don't wish to start an argument, but most libertarians define their reality in their own head. Their arguments often don't translate into real world scenarios but trying to convince them of this is practically impossible.
My experience of arguing with libertarians is that they are often desperate to view a complex world in an impractically black and white manner. I wouldn't say there's no point arguing, but I can certainly understand why people would find it frustrating.
