While individual liberty is the basis for America and the conservative philosophy, its quite different for the libertarian philosophy. A libertarian is someone who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. That's a formula for chaos and anarchy.
That is incorrect. Your desciption is better fitted to an anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the justice system although certain acts that are now crimes would be legal in a libertarian country.
Also it should be made clear that "liberty" for a libertarian refers only to government coercion. What happens in civil society is not the issue.
What interests me the most about the article is the foreign policy aspect. Libertarian foreign policy (if there is one) fails because it rests on an unrealistic view of the world. I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. Yet we must be, first because no one else can do it and second because our national interest requires it.
I don't know, I usually consider myself something of a libertarian, yet I don't believe in "absolute and unrestricted liberty." It seems pretty clear that if one person has absolute and unrestricted liberty, he cannot avoid being able to encroach on someone else's absolute and unrestricted liberty.
F.A. Hayek, who is one of my inspirations, rejected, after consideration, the label of "libertarian." I'll have to look up why, later.
On the odd chance I might get a civilized answer, what restrictions do you propose be placed on liberty?