Extremely biased article. The author clearly hates Libertarians and does his best to just laugh at them and misrepresent their beliefs and makes not a single coherent argument of any kind. He is clearly used to being in a bubble and preaching to the converted. Libertarians are not the same as Trump supporters.
I know this is anecdata and I have no proof, but when I was in SF 20 or so years ago, I knew a videographer. One of his contracts was doing video work for the Libertarian party, filming meetings, etc. He told me, in some meeting of the upper brass, that he overheard several laughing about the rank and file - apparently the real purpose of the Libertarian party is to serve as an outlet for the Republican weirdos, cranks, troublemakers - and those who might actually make a positive difference in tempering the right wing conservative lunatics.
Now that the GOP is the TrumpForever (for a 1000 years) party, maybe the Libertarian party is going to get flooded with refugees and hopefully grow the hell up. Libertarian thought is useful, but does bump up against reality a lot, so it needs to be tempered. As an ideology (like all ideologies) it is pathetic and the ideologues as well.
As for the article, I think it made its point very well. The book sounds atrocious, but what else would you expect from stenographers for those in power?
Do I infer correctly that by "extremely biased article" you are referring to the reviewed book "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear", and the "he" refers to the author of the reviewed book, Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling?
I ask because this HN posting links to article reviewing that book, authored by Elizabeth Austin, who is described as a "she", and who appears to agree with your views of the book.
For example, she comments that Hongoltz-Hetling chose "snark over substance."
Austin does not appear to laugh at libertarians. Indeed, she comments "For years now, reporters and pundits have chosen to focus on the style, rather than the policy substance, of the growing libertarian right".
I see several coherent arguments, like the Hongoltz-Hetling's lost opportunity to discuss "one character’s conviction on 129 counts of child pornography" in the context of the divisive topic within the Libertarian party of strong support for child pornography laws.
