The author seemingly understands neither neoclassical economics nor libertarianism. He resorts to the same old tired criticism of how the so-called homo economi

The author seemingly understands neither neoclassical economics nor libertarianism. He resorts to the same old tired criticism of how the so-called homo economicus models are unrealistic, but as with most such armchair critics, ignores that a model's predictive power and applicability can be wide even in the case of simplifying axioms and agent motives. He makes a false dichotomy between "maximization" and "competition" as if they are mutually exclusive and that neoclassical economics doesn't study the latter. Never mind it's an integral part of price theory. Finally, nowhere is a case against libertarianism ever presented. The author assumes neoclassical = libertarian, which is patently false. The school most associated with libertarianism (Austrian) is, in fact, strongly critical of many neoclassical assumptions, including equilibrium. The only "argument" against libertarianism presented is "lol Somalia and Afghanistan".