I'm no libertarian, but I don't see why those statements make the article terrible. After all, are they not true, and do they not underscore his point--that bot

I'm no libertarian, but I don't see why those statements make the article terrible. After all, are they not true, and do they not underscore his point--that both of those constituencies benefit from government intervention in society as it is and was in the 20's, and therefore would not theoretically be amenable to principles of less government? If there's anything that makes the article terrible--which I don't think it is, it's well-argued for the point it's making--it's the blind assumption underlying it that less government is always better. I think that's a silly principle to argue for, but then I haven't read anything else he's written; for all I know he's made efforts to defend it in the past, so I can't assume he considers it a matter of faith.