I would argue that socialism and libertarianism are not forms of government, or even philosophies of government, but values that are brought to government. All government essentially involves balancing security and liberty, and the socialism/libertarianism dichotomy is really a spectrum that reflects where one finds that balance. And the narrow/broad distribution discussed in the article is another expression of that spectrum: on the left, the more egalitarian distribution one might associate with socialism; on the right, the broader distribution that might be associated with libertarianism.

But neither socialism nor libertarianism is equipped to deal with corporatism, which is orthogonal to the balance between the security and liberty of individuals, because it involves an entirely separate kind of participant. Corporations can warp the landscape much like gravity warps space, creating demand for inferior goods and shifting massive external costs onto the general public. The author identifies some of the effects of corporatism as problems for libertarianism, and describes them in terms of the uniform/diverse distribution model. But the article doesn't address the corporatist roots of those problems, in much the same way that a flatlander could identify problems created by 3-dimensional invaders but would struggle to see the real cause.