I think you may be hanging to tightly to the semantics.
Libertarianism is not being used (in this article or in general discussion) in its moral theory/political theory sense. They are referring to the derived economic policy theories.
Hype removed, it might read: 'End of government intervention as a taboo.'
No, I don't think so. I am an economist; I understand the issue. I'm saying that if you start with a government intervention, there's not anything unlibertarian about advocating a further intervention to make things less bad, provided that you oppose the initial intervention.
For instance, libertarians oppose government-created monopolies. But given a government-created monopoly, it's not unlibertarian to support regulating it. The optimal libertarian policy is obviously abolishing said monopoly. The second-best one is regulating it. The third-best is letting it abuse its power.
I wasn't implying tat you don't understand the issue. Just that I think the article is implying something more shallow then what you seem to have responded to.
Libertarianism is not being used (in this article or in general discussion) in its moral theory/political theory sense. They are referring to the derived economic policy theories.
Hype removed, it might read: 'End of government intervention as a taboo.'