Don't forget that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't for recreational enjoyment, or self defence, but it was, instead, to ensure the security of the state by being a sort of counter-pressure against authoritarian behaviour. Aside from that, however, I feel that this quote by Thomas Jefferson is appropriate:

I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.

You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.

I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said "Maximize individual rights, and freedoms", I did not mean to infer "Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another". The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.

pay a child to work in a mine

I don't believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.

schedule workers for 80+ hours a week

If one consents, then there should be no issue.

drive without speed limits

Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them -- this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

use as much water out of the local river as desired

This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).

dump waste into that same river

This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.

sell unregulated, untested medicine

I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it's efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug's efficacy vs. mandating it's safety.

[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.

Did you mistype something? That comment doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding how it is written. Would you mind rewording, or explaining what you mean?

I stand by what I’ve been saying.

What, specifically, are you trying to say?

Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?

On the contrary. If I hit the dislike button, I am actually making use of my free speech. The fact that you are able to say that you think I am silencing your free speech is proof that you still maintain your freedom of speech. Now, if I somehow had the ability to remove your comment (looking at you, mods), that would be silencing your free speech.

My issue with this definition is how vague it is.

This is somewhat intentional. One should note that Libertarianism is not perfectly monolithic in its ideology -- in that it does not outline a regimented doctrine which must be adhered to for one to have the privilege of calling themself a libertarian. Instead, I would argue that it outlines a set of shared values being that one recognizes the importance of the state, but also possesses the goal to minimize it to the extent that is realistically attainable, and also that one possesses the desire to equally maximize the rights and freedoms of themself, as well as their fellow citizenry. You will find no exact agreement between libertarians on many precise social issues. What you will instead find is a set of common shared ideals with which they base their opinions.

what of liberalism

Liberalism, I would say, is where libertarianism inherits its desire for freedom. It outlines the philosophy that an individual should fundamentally posses a set of inalienable rights, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, equality before the law, consent of the governed, right to the private ownership of property, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to instead give an outline to how I define liberalism.

what of minarchy

Minarchy, loosely speaking, is the desire to have a small state. Fundamentally, libertarianism will have the common denominator of a "Nightwatchmen State" in that the state should provide, at the very least, national protection through the military, and the enforcement of personal, and property rights through a police force and the judicial system.

The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough?

I would argue that the minimization of the state is not necessarily a destination, but, instead, it is an aspiration. While you could say that "small enough" could be a pure Nightwatchmen State, I am very hesitant to do so, as it would be to assert that this is the ultimate, and perfect form of a minimal state, which I feel would be an arrogant statement to make.

And then which rights are necessary?

Answering this with precision, and confidence carries the same sort of issues as that of answering "how small of a state is enough"? The world is unfortunately not perfect enough to be able to create such exact, and precise rules. We instead must state guidelines, frameworks, and principles from which we base our opinions, and legislation -- we set our baseline, and determine on a case-by-case basis how laws fit in. One should be granted the rights to guarantee them maximal amount of freedom as can be realistically given so long as it does not infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.

Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school.

The right to freedom of religion is not the assertion that one must practice a religion, but freely have the choice between them. It is the right to choose to practice a religion. I'm not well acquainted with the laws, and politics of France, but to ban one's religious wear is to infringe on their free practice of their religion.

Is the right to hate speech required?

I would encourage you to define that. I challenge you to come up with a definition that is not based in personal opinion. One should not have the right to not be offended.

Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required?

These sorts of specific cases are usually left up to municipal bylaw, and tort law. A libertarian argument could be that no one should infringe on one's private enjoyment their life without their consent. If one incurred damages for such non-consensual infringements, they should be properly compensated.

Who even decides and enforces that?

Tort law is typically enforced by civil courts.

You do realize that virtually every municipality in existence has noise bylaws, right?

The 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right to bear arms", not "the right to bear muskets".

What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot -- imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.

These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.

They are there because they were voted in.

I believe you may be misinterpereting "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". It's not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.

hey just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.

I don't believe that any informed libertarian would advocate for a corporatocracy.

Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny

Would you be able to give some specific examples to back up your claim?

Why do you say this? There would exist a justice system to protect individual, and property rights through tort law, just as there is now.