Those who conflate libertarianism, or classical liberalism, with neoliberalism do so out of ignorance or out of a desire to obscure the distinction between free market/limited government principles and government/corporate enmeshment among power-mongers. Libertarian thought has never claimed that business people act honorably -- crooks can go into business. Libertarians, at least the libertarians associated with the Right, promote limited government, a separation of State and Economy. This doesn't mean regulatory capture, or no regulation. Regulation can take place in a free market without government intervention, except law and court intervention to punish fraud, theft and coercive abuse of power. The problem with statist regulation is that it has favored large corporations which can pay for the cost of compliance, whereas small businesses can't. There is also the problem of lobbying and regulatory capture in the present statist system. Government has become a feeding trough where wealthy interests come to get fed, Business/government arrangements attract the most unscrupulous people in society to play the hardball political game.
Our present government/corporate enmeshment is caused by a government which has gone beyond limitations and now manages the economy, except for small areas of commerce of little concern to the power mongers,i.e., the crumbs of the economy. With a limited government separated from the economy, government officials cannot sell or trade favors, because it won't have the power to do so. As I've said before, our problem is the battle over power, not wealth accumulation. In another post, I will once again write about how a free market can be regulated in the private sector.
Most people who make a lot of money realize they have enough at some point, and making more is not exciting -- what becomes exciting is power. When wealthy individuals with a power-hunger tendency can buy power, this is when we have problems of great wealth inequality. In a free market, there will be individuals who generate lots of wealth, but without power for sell, the game will change and extra wealth will be re-invested in the economy rather than spent to amass power and protection from competition. Most wealthy people also have a lot of creative energy, and if that energy can be channelled into charity or philanthropic efforts, this would be a much more useful to society than amassing power. A limited government and a free market will cut off avenues of power-seeking, and redirect energy over time to productive use. Many businesses get caught up in the Washington statist, power game simply because they have to play the game to survive and be competitive. If the corporate feeding trough is destroyed, these business people will direct their interests elsewhere.
Free competition will prevent those determined to gain power from creating coercive monopolies, and competiton will also place limits on how much wealth can be amassed. When a certain product or service becomes popular with consumers, other players will enter the game, thus spreading the wealth. The Left says these ideas have been discredited, but, to be honest, these ideas have never been fully implemented. Whatever Neoliberalism is, it's not libertarianism.