libertarians' fundamental thesis seems to be that anything that doesn't harm others freedom's and rights should be allowed. This is a fantastic belief, but in practice there are a lot of things you can do as an individual that can adversely affect society, and end up being regulated. If there is some stupid law on the books prohibiting practice 'X', it is quite likely that at one time someone was doing that very thing and that pissed off enough people that a law got passed.
On one hand, government trying to predict what sort of behaviors will need to be regulated seems like a bad idea, because you are asking some of the dumbest people on the planet (politicians) to try to predict the future. I generally like the idea of a reactive government, that only trys to fix things that actually become problems, so I would lean toward the libertarian model.
But, given the nature of corporations, I can saw with 100% confidence that if we do not pass laws forcing a level playing field, we will have all sorts of problems. The Internet to these people is nothing more than a brand new resource to be exploited in the most efficient way possible. Mind you, this isn't because the companies involved are corrupt, evil entities. This is simply because that is what capitalism encourages. Barring additional regulation, the most profitable company is the one most ruthlessly efficient at creating and selling a product. Nothing about capatialisim is geared toward what is good for the whole of society, just what makes money.
An intellectually honest libertarian will be willing to recognize that libertarianism is a utopian ideal (like most 'isims'), and that reality requires quite a lot of rules to keep the 1% of the world who are total assholes from screwing things up for the other 99%. This article seems to be written by idealists who don't live in the real world.
