Ayn Rand, we hardly knew thee

Libertarianism is quite popular among the young conservative set that eschews the old guard's traditional values and accompanying bigotry.  While this ideology is certainly preferable to the Republicanism of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, it has two fundamental flaws: 1) Laissez-faire economics may grow the pie, but who's getting all the slices? and 2) Libertarianism discounts all values in favor of economic efficiency.

I really don't care how much GDP grows if an elite few capture the benefits.  According to the perverse utilitarianism that undergirds libertarian ethics, a society where wealth is concentrated in 1% of the population and the rest of the nation lives in abject poverty is preferable to, for example, a scandinavian democracy where everyone has a high quality of life.  This might be tolerable if placement in the socioeconomic structure correlated directly to work ethic or ability, but for every Horatio Alger there's a George Bush.  

Of course, economic productivity is not the only measure of meaning.  Even the most ruthless capitalism must be justified by principles which lend value to wealth: usually a base hedonism that equates money with happiness.  Honestly, I'd rather have a nation of middle-class scholars than one populated by investment bankers with beamers.  At least the former have decent taste.