You state that the author fails to consider the positive side of libertarianism. Well, of course, he was criticizing foreign policy mainly. He probably agrees (I don't really know) with many libertarian positions. For myself, the foreign policy is the issue. I still do agree with most domestic positions of the LP.
Although they make several mistakes IMHO.
They are way too idealistic. If you say its my way or the highway you will probably end up on the highway. In politics, compromise is essential. Libs seems to think it is a mortal sin. Contrast to Bush. He has taken several positions with which I disagee (steel tariffs, education bill) but he is a master of working the system. So you don't get all you want right away. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" and libs are in denial of this.
As far as your discussion of Lincoln I agree 110%. (Of course I AM a Southerner) Lincoln is surely not my hero.
Finally you praise the Libs for standing by original intent and trash the Pubbies for all these horrible violations of our civil liberties.
To me it is a thorny question. What if our security depends on abriging our liberties to some extent. Which side do you choose? I think that you have to err on the side of security. So acts like the Patriot Act have to be justified on the grounds that it will really help security (I'm not sure it is justified). But its not helpful to take the purist attitude that no infringment of liberty however small can be tolerated. Would you rather be dead than even slightly unfree?
What if our security depends on abriging our liberties to some extent. Which side do you choose?
Without a doubt, I choose Liberty. Your point is well taken, but give me Liberty and I will make myself secure. Furthermore, the scenario that your question poses presents an unrealistically limited set of choices. In fact, there are many more ways that the government can assure our security.
In short, if a country gives aid or assistance to terrorists (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq), we hold the leadership of that country responsible and take immediate and decisive military action in retaliation. If a country fails to act against its citizens who give aid or assistance to terrorists (i.e. Saudi Arabia), we hold the leadership of that country responsible and if after being warned, they still fail to take action to punish those people within a reasonable time frame, we take decisive military action in retaliation.
The answer is not to punish Americans, by restricting our rights. The answer is to go after the terrorists and any country that, either through overt action or through inaction, gives aid or assistance to terrorists. The leadership of those countries should be treated as terrorists themselves and we are perfectly within our rights to defend ourselves by attacking those who give any kind of sustenance to our avowed enemy.
So acts like the Patriot Act have to be justified on the grounds that it will really help security (I'm not sure it is justified).
You nailed the problem in that statement. In fact, having read the entire 367 pages of the USA Patriot Act, I can tell you that less than 10% of what is in that act, is in fact "justified" and might actually help prevent terrorism. Both parties used the wave of patriotism that followed the September 11 attacks and threw in their wish list of the things that they knew the voters would never support. As I pointed out earlier, 125 pages of that act had nothing to do with anything except the monitoring of US financial institutions and the flow of funds within the United States. There is no excuse for that, since we know that the terrorists do not use the US banking system to launder funds. We know that they use the Arabic banking system, that we have absolutely no control over. (See Defending the American Dream - Taxes, Tort and Terrorism, for more on this issue)
Would you rather be dead than even slightly unfree?
Actually, I would much rather that the terrorists and all of their supporters were dead and you and I were still free. You don't punish all women, by telling them to stay home, just because there are a few rapists on the loose. You aggressively go after the rapists and their accomplices. You don't punish all gunowners, by taking away their guns, just because there are some thieves on the loose who are using guns to rob convenience stores. You aggressively go after the thieves and their accomplices. And, you don't punish the American people, by taking away their rights, just because there are a few terrorists on the loose who might attack us. You aggressively go after the terrorists and their accomplices, even and especially when their accomplices are other nations.
When our government uses the threat of terrorism to strip us of our rights, they are playing right into the hands of the terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, Dubya and Congress have done far more damage to this country since September 11, 2001, than the terrorists could ever dream of doing in 100 years.
That's why I always vote for the man rather than for the party.