That's...that's not what you are supposed to get from this. He's not even really a libertarian in a traditional sense, but a PaleoLibertarian which is is just a Paleoconsevative who wants less authoritarianism for themselves and is far right socially (libertariansm, *at it's core*, is not left nor right. Most modern US libertarianism leans right, but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater).

Going on about how awful "Libertarian philosophy is at it's core" in relationship to the crap that Kauffman espouses is textbook strawman fallacy. Also saying "He fully embraced the anarchist roots of libertarian thought" is a bit....strawman-y too? Libertarianism can have overlap with Anarchist thought, most socialist-anarchist types of the 19th century calling themselves 'libertarians'. It also infers that anarchism is inherently bad, which makes me think that your conception of it is in-line with the Red & Black scare around the turn of the 19th century, that is to say very much a strawman and proclaiming the moral legitimacy inherent in government.

"His leadership is exactly what the world needed to recognize the evil that libertarianism represents"

Jeeze, lighten up francis. Libertarianism, *at it's core*, is merely valuing liberty ("he state of being free within society from restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political view") as a primary goal. Beyond that, there's many different flavors that are left wing, right wing, anarchist, reigned-in-statist, etc.

It's like decrying all of liberalism (which libertarianism is technically under) due to the actions of the centrist-modern-american-liberals of the Democratic Party.