As I have pointed out to him in a recent comment on his site, why do libertarians like him never speak of the rights of pedestrians or non-smokers to have a choice not to be choked by traffic or choked by smoke? When we build for cars that pollute and kill, why is that not an infringement on the rights of pedestrians and cyclists and any other vulnerable (usually poor) group who cannot have a car? When there is no practical choice to have a drink or watch a band without stinking of smoke, where is the liberty there? In theory there may be a choice - non-smokers should set their own non-smoking club up they cry. But why did this not happen? Tolerating something is not the same as choosing it. Having a choice between not going out to see a band or have a drink or stinking of smoke is no choice at all. The inconvenience for those trying to find a pub that didn't make them stink of smoke was far higher than the inconvenience of smokers having to smoke outside.
The truth is there is no absolute monopoly on liberty. Most actions increase the liberties of some while reducing it for others. Longrider cannot get this simple concept through his thick skull unlike people who actually do understand the true concept of liberty.