The truly limiting aspect of this article is the author's assumption that a person can be typed as believing anything philosophically simply because of what he

The truly limiting aspect of this article is the author's assumption that a person can be typed as believing anything philosophically simply because of what he does or what he has or has not achieved. This incorrectly assumes that one's belief in something being true cannot vary from a particular life perspective. Can a student be a libertarian even though he has yet to accomplish much in life? Can a wealthy mogul believe in communism even though he is positively dripping in filthy lucre? Not according to the author's (implied) premise and yet we know that in both cases the answer is yes. It is the premise that is false. Thus, the author basically answers his critics by slipping in, sub silento, an ad hominem attack to the effect that only an unthinking person who happens to have gotten quick financial success in life can possibly be a libertarian. The unexpressed corollary to this is that no one could otherwise possibly be so stupid as to believe in a libertarian philosophy. I am not defending any particular philosophy in saying this; just noting the below-the-belt mode of argumentation. I think this is why it can rub people wrong even if points made along the way might otherwise be interesting to consider.