I'll respect anyone who tries to put their ideas out there but this is a pretty ignorant piece. The problem is he doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an ideal and the rational application of an ideal. So what he's doing is taking the strictest interpretation of Libertarianism and arguing against it even though no rational Libertarian would ever argue that.
I'll give one example. The author lists the "Libertarian Fallacy" as "the idea that freedom is measured by absence of laws". He then goes on to argue against this fairly unrealistic idea. The problem is most rational Libertarians wouldn't advocate for the absence of laws even if they could make it happen. So he's arguing against a straw man. The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning.
In addition to that he's extrapolating Libertarian points to unrealistic levels to support his argument. For example, he says "The Taxation Fallacy counts how much wealth is taken away by taxation, but ignores the amount that comes back from it -- it treats money that is taxed as if it simply disappears". The problem is that no Libertarian actually believes the wealth completely disappears. The Libertarian point is that Government is inefficient so it takes wealth and then returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste (such as not being able to dock some government employees pay even when they are being disciplined which essentially gives them a paid vacation for doing something wrong).
It's a long piece and I could go on to refute every point but there's really no reason for that. The bottom line is he doesn't have any grasp on what Libertarians truly believe making the whole thing not really worth reading.
I'll give one example. The author lists the "Libertarian Fallacy" as "the idea that freedom is measured by absence of laws". He then goes on to argue against this fairly unrealistic idea. The problem is most rational Libertarians wouldn't advocate for the absence of laws even if they could make it happen. So he's arguing against a straw man. The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning.
In addition to that he's extrapolating Libertarian points to unrealistic levels to support his argument. For example, he says "The Taxation Fallacy counts how much wealth is taken away by taxation, but ignores the amount that comes back from it -- it treats money that is taxed as if it simply disappears". The problem is that no Libertarian actually believes the wealth completely disappears. The Libertarian point is that Government is inefficient so it takes wealth and then returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste (such as not being able to dock some government employees pay even when they are being disciplined which essentially gives them a paid vacation for doing something wrong).
It's a long piece and I could go on to refute every point but there's really no reason for that. The bottom line is he doesn't have any grasp on what Libertarians truly believe making the whole thing not really worth reading.