Well, if it flies under cover of freedom but it's not free...then it's not libertarian, is it?

I generally support abortion rights, although I do get squeemish as the end of term approaches. At some point we have to start calling it a baby. But again, that's a contentious issue best settled by courts and straight-up democracy.

Some issues will have an element of risk associated with them, and we have to make a choice as a society as to how much risk is acceptable before we limit freedom. A simple example is speed limits. 75 mph seems acceptable to be, but 100? I don't think so. We do know that at 75 more people are going to die than if we set the limit to 35. Or 20. 20 would certainly be a lot safer...

The most recent and most contentious issue was efforts to make people get the vaccine. I fall firmly on the side that if you are afraid of the vaccine and don't want to get it, that's your business. Your body, your choice.

Lots of people thought that people who didn't get the vaccine were imposing their idea of freedom upon others since they were exposing others to risk. There is an element of truth to that, but I come down firmly on the side of choice here. That's a preference that comes from being a libertarian. Much as I'm willing to accept a speed limit of 75, I'm willing to accept that some people will refuse the vaccine and therefore present a small risk to the public.

If the vaccines had worked better this wouldn't be an issue at all--just get the vaccine and be safe. But they were crap and you could get the virus even with the vaccine so we had to make a public choice on the matter. As usual there was a hodgepodge of rules in different localities which I think is fine. If you lived in a relatively free place like Florida you got left alone. If you lived in California, well, you better get the vaccine or move out.