I`m sorry if I am reading this wrong but does that propose that only after the fact should any action be weighed as being injurious.
In other words murder isn`t illegal on its face but the act may be punishable if after the commission of it someone determines it to have been injurious.
Sounds silly but it leaves the door open for situation ethics...XYZ persons life wasn`t determined to be valuable or not enough so that his/her killing proved to be injurious.
Capital "L" Libertarianism is almost as confused and befuddled as its long distance cousin liberalism in trying to set up a utopian society and uses the same suspension of reality to argue its claims.
What it says is that you can only justly criminalize injurious actions, not simply actions which make one more likely to commit an injurious action, if said action does not in and of itself injure another person. As related to the current topic: it's not the alcohol in the drunk driver's bloodstream that kills his passengers after a collision, it's the collision. That collision is already a crime. To protect the intoxicated driver from his own stupidity by criminalizing driving while intoxicated in an attempt to make his decisions for him - this smacks of nanny-statism, something conservatives are supposed to oppose.
In my experience, however, a great many conservatives oppose nanny-statism only when it involves providing the people with positive benefits - what you might call maternal government - but not government which attempts to control the behavior of its subjects through threats of force - what might be called paternal government. In other words, many conservatives, along with the vast majority of liberals, are guilty of treating citizens - all citizens - like children. They differ only in the implementation of that treatment - liberals want to spoil the "children," while conservatives want to raise them with discipline. While I think conservatism is superior in this, as in most cases, I tend to think that a better solution is to just not treat everyone like a child.
And of course capital "L" Libertarianism is confused and befuddled - it contradicts itself. It is an attempt to organize into a political party the rejection of politics - politics being, by their own philosophy, the exertion of control by one party over another.
To say that libertarianism is the cousin of liberalism is misleading - true as far as it goes, but you neglect to mention that it is also the cousin of conservatism, being that liberalism is generally pro-personal liberties and anti-economic liberties, whereas conservatism is generally the opposite, and libertarianism is pro-both, thereby taking a pro- from each of the other two political philosophies.
