The libertarian would have no consistent reason NOT to defend such a “right”. You have offered no reason that private actions should NOT be brought into the public realm and declared “rights”.
“I missed your response to these points”
Go back and look again and if you don't find a response perhaps I felt no response was necessary to the point or the point not worthy of response.
The libertarian would have no consistent reason NOT to defend such a “right”.
You may be right - feel free to go find a libertarian with whom to argue the point.
You have offered no reason that private actions should NOT be brought into the public realm and declared “rights”.
It's clear to me that the distinction between private and public is self-evident; if you don't agree, then that distinction is certainly and immediately established by the self-evident truth that there are acts we have the right to perform in private but not in public (e.g., making love with one's spouse). If you think a libertarian can't consistently make the distinction, again, feel free to go find a libertarian with whom to argue the point.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
I missed your response to these points.
Go back and look again and if you don't find a response
I didn't.
perhaps I felt no response was necessary to the point or the point not worthy of response.
I think it more likely you have no coherent response. I'm content to let readers decide.