Fortunately, TAC presents a variety of views, and in the same issue can be found one of the best defenses of individualism and freedom and libertarianism I've had the pleasure of reading in that magazine (online this time, since I unfortunately let my charter subscription lapse).
Dan McCarthy's In Defense of Freedom makes an excellent counterpoint to Locke's confused and disjointed screed.
His description of the differences between "moderate" and "radical" libertarians, actually describes the differences between "utilitarian" and "natural-rights" libertarians. Both of which have their own moderate and radical camps. Though utilitarian radicals are harder to identify. Ludwig von Misses, for one, can be described as a utilitarian radical, as he has said that if socialism could be legitimately argued to be able to do what it proposes to do, then he would be a socialist. This is a kind of position that could be held by both moderate and radical utilitarians in the libertarian movement. On the other hand, Natural-rights libertarians, including moderate ones, could never except such notion.
Another small area of disagreement I have with him is his giving credit to libertarians for that which conservatives have long been doing. There is much I say libertarians should get credit for, but only where that credit is due. His ignoring the accomplishments of the conservatives, apparently seeing the neocons as being the only conservatives, seems to prevent him from seeing the other conservatives and their many accomplishments.
Finally, it should be noted that he fails to define what a libertarian is. Not doing so makes it easy to toss around terms like moderate and radical, as well as to credit as libertarians those who are not libertarian.
Over all I must say that I was quite surprised seeing such a high quality article on libertarianism published by conservative magazine. Unlike the junk presented by Robert Locke, this article was extremely accurate and well worth the read.
Great article.
Can I steal it and post it?