Wow. What a stunningly bad article...
Jonathan Jones shows very clearly that he has no idea what libertarianism is about, if only with the following line...... affirming the inalienable right of the majority to force rules upon the minority."
Despite pointing to the Non-Aggression axoim, poor wee Jonathan obviously doesn't understand it: libertarianism does not recognise the "right of the majority to force rules upon the minority"—I think that you'll find that that is called "democracy".
The whole point of the Non-Aggression Axiom is that no one is allowed to force anything, rules or otherwise, on the minority—or, for that matter, on the majority."Libertarians argue that a government cannot stand without the support of the people."
Libertarians argue no such thing. Anarcho-libertarians believe that there should be no government; minarchist libertarians believe that the only thing that the government should exist for is the protection of its citizens (through the provision of national defence and, possibly, criminal justice).
I would fisk the rest of the article but I find it impossible because it makes no sense.
It. Makes. No. Sense.
Why is Afghanistan in there? No idea. How does Afghanistan relate to libertariaism? It doesn't. How do the Americans or the Taliban relate to libertarianism? They don't. For that matter, how does George Washington relate to libertarianism? He doesn't.
What I take from this article is: the reason that Jonathan Jones is not a libertarian is because he believes that might is right. And, in this he is correct: for a libertarian, might is never right.
Do go and read the article and see if you can make any sense of it.