The difference between me and a true libertatian is a matter of degree. A true Libertarian might take the view, for example, that people ought to be able to drive as fast as they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. That's stupid, because if you do get an accident, then the chances are pretty good that you're going to hurt someone else. And even if you don't hurt me, accidents result in increased insurance rates and increased insurance rates reduce my net wealth, which makes me angry.
Yeah, that's Absolutist Libertarianism and not what I consider libertarianism. A concept I do believe would sell with the Sheeple is Federal Libertarianism, in which even the speed limit concept you eschew in yer example would suffice against an argument for Federally-mandated speed limits. If the States or Localities want to mandate said limits, they can argue it out amongst themselves, but the Feds have no say in the matter whatsoever!! For instance, I was in Montana for a wedding a coupla years ago and the speed limit outside of City Limits was something like "Safe and Reasonable" or "Reasonable and Prudent," meaning in essence that if you wrecked or were seen outta control, you got a ticket for speeding, otherwise you could drive as fast as you wanted and nobody messed with you.
Of course, Federal Libertarianism is also known as Constitutionalism, which our Founding Fathers wisely put into place, but our SCOTUS has gradually allowed to be eroded.
FReegards...MUD