Hmmm: drink had been taken and that posted worded a little strongly.
The point that I was trying to make is that under the libertarian ideal, you can live your life in the way that you see fit. If you want to live in a little socialist enclave, for instance, that's fine (as long as everyone is doing so voluntarily).
Any other system is effectively forcing your personal morality onto others, backed up by the coercive power of the state. Or, as some might put it, enforcing your beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
And it is this that has led, inexorably, to this constant state interference in our lives, the so-called nanny-state. Because if it is "right" to force your beliefs to the extent of stealing the fruits of people's labour to prop up your beliefs, then you have already taken the biggest step: telling them how they should live the rest of their lives—what their weight should be, how they should talk, what their decisions should be—are just little incremental steps.
That is what we are all arguing about here. Whether you are Tory, Liberal or Labour, the first big step is believing that your views are so correct that they should be forced on everyone else.
That really isn't a morally acceptable position, as far as I am concerned.
That is why I'm a libertarian: because I don't believe that the way that I choose to live my life should be forced onto everyone else.
And I tend to get... er... excited about it because I cannot understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to understand.
UPDATE: The Nameless One puts the argument across in the temperate and reasonable fashion that I should have employed...