The author CHOOSES to use collectivist values, definitions and worldview in his misguided attempt to debunk Libertarian thought (both large and small 'L'). His whole arguement begins with the presumption that a ruling elite has the authority to direct the resources of society. In the end he concludes that libertarian ideals don't really get perfectly inplemented, and therefore ta-ta-rahhhh we need to have a government that micromanages everyone's lives.
He dismisses the issues discussed in voluminous writings by Classical Liberal authors such as Hayek, Friedman and Von Mises with a wave of his hand, calmly setting up straw-man arguments and briskly knocking them down without addressing the actual issues that have ben widely debated for hundreds of years.
I am hesitant to spend much effort to cite rank and file examples simply because I believe it would do no good. If you truly cared for such you'd read the Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, or Human Action yourself and critique them accordingly.
Many here are frustrated with this article because they see the individual as owning themselves and as a consequence of that, owning the fruits of their labor. This is axiomatic to them. A large part of the frustration that we have with you is you are strolling in with an argument that a ruling elite can kill and destroy in order to buy themselves power and create a social picture that they find more pleasing. And that somehow to say otherwise is self contradictory because voluntary co-operation will result in a picture that someone else finds pleasing.