freedom today may enhance it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may enhance it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is wrong. Libertarianism's absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery. (It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.) Most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Thus people don't choose absolute freedom. This refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as it defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. So people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians. Quite the Scheie Sturm you got in the comments, ehh comrade? I though John Brown was hanged for that dust up in Harper's Ferry Va. quite a long time ago but I don't think he was a libertarian, more of a wild eyed radical egalitarian. He helped start a bit of a bigger row too if remember correctly or did I miss something? Anyway I find it disturbing how such little things can spark such animosity, especially amongst those that feel threatened by others with a social conscience that request to be treated in a respectful manner and to not be maligned for expressing their distaste for being treated otherwise. Oh hey,