The problem is that it's Salon - the writing is really badly biased, doesn't actually understand Libertarianism at all, and is mostly trying to smear Ron Paul.
The problem is that Libertarians have yet to explain their philosophy in such a way that non-libertarians would understand. "You don't understand" is the most common thing I hear when talking to a Libertarian. After awhile one just gets tired of it.
This is the genetic fallacy[1] -- you're claiming that the argument is bad because of its source, not its content. If you think the article misappropriates Libertarianism, show how it does that.
I'm generally in favor of the flavor of the narrative: a takedown of libertarianism is very much something I enjoy watching, but this is a horribly written article. It's a cringe-fest even I had trouble forcing my way through. The quality of writing is very poor, the points seem disjointed and unrelated. Libertarianism isn't too hard to attack in its honest form, no need for a smear piece like this.
Author defines Libertarianism as "eliminate all taxes, privatize everything, load a country up with guns and oppose all public expenditures". Not biased at all
