I didn't read the original article completely but your reply is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: Positions you don't agree with, are "no true Libertarian" positions.

But how do you know what all Libertarians truly believe?

For instance, you say: "The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning." This sounds fine. However, this is so general that probably even, say, a Marxist would agree. He would just not agree on what "functioning" means or what particular laws are indeed necessary.

One could argue that even apes have functioning sociaties and they have no laws that we know of. Is this the ideal we as humans should therefore establish? It would fit your definition as well.

Also, your argument that the government "returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste" is weak, for you don't know what value the returning money creates. That might easily trade-off any existing "waste". For instance, what value is created when streets are build by the government? What value was created by the ARPANet investments in the Internet technology?

That's the problem with political ideals: One often defends one's own ideals althought one doens't really know what they mean.