[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.