As always, wikipedia is a good start.
Price fixing and hiring agreements do not involve force, fraud, or misrepresentation- yet the regulation or prohibition thereof directly violates the property rights of the market participants.
I've read the Wikipedia entry you've linked to in its entirety, so I kindly ask that you will read this one: https://mises.org/daily/4397
Hiring agreements are where an employer uses the power of their position (and those they are colluding with) to control their employees. I would argue this is just another form of 'force'. You don't need to physically harm someone to control them.
The percentage of people who agree with what I've asserted here has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. And attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem. Shooting the messenger does not address the message.
No. Saying that the framework you're basing an argument on is flawed isn't dismissing the argument because of a personal flaw of the person asserting something. It's saying that the core axioms/assumptions are flawed.
Maybe you over-identify with that ideology and are taking criticisms of the ideology personally since it feels personal, but it's not at all about you, it's about the ideas you're espousing.
And you've espoused none. You may disagree with said axioms but you haven't pointed out what those are or why you disagree with them.
"You're wrong" isn't an argument. "You're wrong because what you're saying sounds like libertarianism" isn't an argument either.