So when I read Jeff Sachs talking about "to the exclusion of..." I interpreted it as meaning "if liberty comes into conflict with equality, choose liberty" or "if liberty comes into conflict with democracy, choose liberty". That seemed like a fair assessment of libertarianism to me.
It seems prepostrous to me to read that as "libertarians, by definition, don't care about human welfare or equality or any of these other values". But perhaps it's because some people are reading it that way that they are up in arms... that may explain the Horwitz post that I found so puzzling.
I don't think it's sensible to read the Sachs article as saying you hate puppies and orphans.
I do think it's sensible to read the Sachs article as saying that the classical liberal value of liberty is prioritized over other classical liberal values by libertarians.