This story is unavailable.

“If we boil down the libertarian ideology to its fundamentals, they essentially believe that we should have as minimal government as possible. Government protections of civil rights? Zip. Government regulations of large, unsustainable financial institutions that have already reeked havoc on our economy? Nope. Government policies that preserve the environment and protect our natural resources? Zilch.”
The author clearly has no idea what the libertarian philosophy is apart from the propaganda written in AlterNet & Huffington Post articles. At least, it seems that way.

Libertarianism at its core is about the non-aggression principle, that government in general shouldn’t force things on people and that people should overwhelmingly operate by consent, but this is not a fundamentalist rule. Libertarians also believe in the police, courts, and the military, just not a police state, courtroom bureaucracy, and the military-industrial complex.

Clearly, you have a very biased and dim view of libertarianism that has been influenced by writers and speakers who have a statist leaning and who usually have done very little research on libertarian ideology themselves.

Libertarianism is not anarchism. Libertarians do believe in government, but when given the choice between siding with a top-down solution and allowing people the freedom to choose and make decisions, they tend to side with freedom.

Your argument is essentially a strawman. It is like saying that just because civil libertarians are very concerned government surveillance and privacy and the over-encroachment of the USA-PATRIOT Act that they must somehow also be against all forms of government action to prevent and deter terrorism.

For instance, instead the government regulating the number calories allowed in a food item or banning high-calorie foods, libertarians would be fine with a minimal regulation that simply mandates that the calorie count be displayed on the side of the food item. This is how we differ from liberals, who would rather decide what you get to eat. Conservatives, on the other hand, may simply ban certain menu items because they feel they disagree with how their god views certain foods or how they think people “should” eat. Libertarians say, that’s between you and the food company and that government’s job is simply to ensure that people who make unsafe and fraudulent food are prosecuted. If the food is mildly unsafe but not lethal or wholly toxic, like say it’s a tobacco or alcohol product, a warning label for the consumer may also suffice.

Please consider doing more research on libertarianism.

As for the Department of Education? It needs to be abolished. Why not just give states directly the money and let their own individual education departments decide? The DoE is a waste of money and does nothing but cost taxpayers while giving do-nothing bureaucrats an excuse for a job.