And it works out just as well as you’d expect:
The consequence is that this philosophy of freedom demands change until all are free. It can never be satisfied because someone is free if another is not. And that is where it starkly contrasts with the right wing libertarian view. And that is why those who subscribe to that view are bound to find me irritating. There is in what I think and the way I act a direct challenge to the egotistic, self centred approach of the libertarian who sees their freedom as existing independently of the constraints it may impose on other’s freedom to commit.
Libertarians generally believe that we are indeed free to do as we wish, but only up to the point that our exercise of such freedom and liberty beings to impact upon the ability of others to enjoy their own freedom and liberty. You know, Mills’ freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins stuff?
And libertarians (and of course classical liberals like myself) also insist that all of the freedoms that we might demand are also liberties that all others might also be able to enjoy.
So give that he’s got the basics of what libertarianism is wrong his further discussion is going to go awry, isn’t it?