[wlesieutre]

We used to have something closer to it. Side effects included child labor, people burning to death in factories because the doors were locked, and Standard Oil, among other things.

Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is overrated.

[derleth]

> Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is overrated.

Be careful with statements like these: Every time you use them, you're betting that you have, in fact, actually seen the hard line.

In this case, I am pretty sure there are others here who have experience with Libertarians (self-proclaimed, perhaps, but loud enough) who do, in fact, believe that complete freedom would lead to market solutions to everything. Utopian Libertarianism, like Utopian Socialism, is quite dogmatic on some issues.

[wlesieutre]

Admittedly, the libertarians I've spoken to personally have some concept along the lines of "Your freedom ends where mine begins," and don't think a society where someone might feel entitled to murdering you over a parking space would be a good idea. But I could probably have worded it better.

In any case, I don't see "complete freedom" for everyone as a concept that can even exist in the abstract. If you have complete freedom, I can't (as a silly example) lock you in my basement and make you sew Snuggies for 20 hours a day. But one definition of freedom (#3 on dictionary.com) that I think applies here is:

>the power to determine action without restraint.

If slave ownership isn't permitted, then I don't have that power. Either you get "complete freedom" or I do.

Replacing "overrated" with "not possible/feasible" should make it a bit more accurate.