Well its great to be a "redical libertarian" in theory. Unfortunately, the world is governed by those with powerful militaries. Always has been, always will be. Either you pony up the tax $$ to defend your national interests, or you get swallowed by an evil opponent.
Well, I am a moderate libertarian. The main point upon which I agree with this author is that modern conservatism has by and large embraced big government.
Weren't the American Indians libertarians? They had no foreign policy, no big government programs....
I agree. The author of the article does not differentiate, nor does Buckley apparently, between taxation for, and a strong federal government in support of strong national defense and a "leviathan government" in general. Because national defense is the primary purpose of the federal government, I believe it should be paramount among that government's priorities. Our nation's citizens should be required to support what ever level of military preparedness best deters our enemies, or, failing that, can handily defeat them.
On the other hand, legislator largess using taxpayer money, under the labels of environmental protection, mindless education spending, federal land management, welfare and a litany of pork projects is a bad thing. I think most conservatives -- and libertarians, for that matter -- would agree. I don't think it requires radical libertarianism to recognize the difference between a strong, capable national defense and problematic Big Government. There's plenty of fat to be trimmed without getting into the meat.