"Ever heard of friends and connections?"
That's your comprehensive solution to compensate for people's lack of marketing and advertisement skills? What are you going to do about the people who don't have readymade access to friends and connections with the opportunity to get them a job or business opportunity, especially in a field that they can compete in?

You believe that most people in poverty don't have (market viable) talents. Successfully building such a network from nothing and harnessing it require certain attributes to a personality, as well as the weakness or absence of detracting attributes. In other words: Talent.

"Nobody forced you to be an artist. Do what pays you better."
In other words: Your proposal doesn't select for talent, it selects for market viability and talents favourable to an environment centered around that. It also flies in the face of the point you made earlier about talent and poverty. In other words: Your proposal is wasteful of talent, and with how much delight vast numbers of people derive from various forms of art, we're not talking about obscure talents like being good at assorting carpet bobs or whatever.

"Everyone fits into factory work (manufacturing) and customer support."
"[...] logistics (delivery guys, drivers etc.)."
Tell that to people with ADHD or social phobias. And before you say "medication!": You need to be able to afford medication in the first place, and not everything can just be medicated away.

Also, in order to be viable in a competitive (job) market you have to stick out in one way or another, and I'm not talking about marketing here: In a saturated factory work and customer support market, only the better ones are likely to get jobs or start and run a successful business.

What are you going to do with the rest? Or do you believe that true right wing libertarianism will somehow create an ever expanding sea of opportunities for everyone who just tries?

Besides: You (hopefully) understand as well as I do that traditional factory and logistics work isn't going to survive the 21. century in any sufficient capacity for it to serve as a viable vessel for "talentless" employment, so that sector of the job market isn't exactly going to go on an expansion spree, regardless of how libertarian the society in question is.

"Most of the day to day goods are expensive because of the taxes and hyperinflation"
They're expensive because an increasing number of people suffers from receding economic enfranchisement, with most of the wealth concentrating in the hands of an increasingly smaller number of people, an effect that started to go into overdrive when governments started to get increasingly corrupted by plutocratic (neoliberal and right wing) influence, which encompasses measures such as tax breaks and loopholes for large corporations, the affluent and the rich.

In other words: The more you take government out of the equation, the more wealth concentration accelerates, because resource concentration is a natural dynamic of any sufficiently complex human society (anything that isn't tribal), which is very easily determined by having a look at any portion of documented history that pertains to such societies.

Also, you might want to have a look at what hyperinflation means.

"[...] that understand their customers [...]"
Those who can afford being their customers, of course.

"Most of the papers published by universities are nothing short of crap and have terrible amounts of left wing bias"
But climate science denying "citizen scientists" associated with oil industry funded think tanks posting doctored graphs on their blogs, and other quacks of the sort, are balanced sources of supreme truth.

"In fact these things are terribly destructive for the economy."
Which is why every single developed nation in the world leading charts in GDP per capita, or other indexes indicating various aspects of development, which are also all social democracies of various degrees, is an economic disaster. Right?

And, finally, you can stop with the completely false right wing propaganda trope of anything meaningful in research, products, services and even employment only coming from the private sector. There's a plethora of technologies we enjoy today in which governments around the world had a massive hand in developing.

The very internet you're using right now is one of those technologies. Do you think there would've been as much as a moon landing at all without the Soviet and US government racing to space?

Also, at least in the countries that I know it of, jobs in government, or the agencies and utility companies run by it aren't exactly known to be the worst jobs out there. They also produce something of actual value, of which a subset would also be produced in a society without a government, because there's a genuine need for it (e.g. electricity, academic education or research (which you vilify if it's not funded by ExxonMobil & friends)).

"If there was no free housing and regulations/taxes [...] companies would be paying enough for their employees to survive"
And they'd run away with the rest of the fruit of those employees' labour, if they're lucky, that is. Depending on how the situation develops, companies in a completely unregulated environment might simply be able to use employees for a time, and when they die off, they can replace them with new supply from the slum of the disenfranchised and otherwise desolate.

And if they rise up? I'm sure there's another megacorporation they can contract to make sure the mob doesn't make it past the gates. Oh, wait, I forgot, megacorporations don't exist in right wing libertarian societies, because, of course, only governments help businesses grow to an unhealthy size, it's not the endless greed for resources and power that makes corporations ever bigger. Not at all.

"In fact, companies build housing themselves right next to the factory to save up on time."
I'm sure unregulated, company provided housing next to the factory is the result of the endless fountain of wisdom on the needs of the factory worker that can only be found in private business and the invisible hand of the market, and not at all in democratically legitimized governments.