Freedom of association is ridiculous? News to me. Letting people decide what goes into their bodies is ridiculous? Come on now. As for age of consent, I can honestly say I've never seen a libertarian argue for the complete abolition of age of consent laws everywhere. I would imagine a strict constitutionalist type would say "The Constitution doesn't say anything about AOC laws, so the federal government has no right. . ." and it remains (mostly) a state issue, anyway.
They're all fringe positions. Just like abolishing Social Security, Medicare, NASA, and privatizing all the roads.
Libertarian social, economic, and foreign policy, taken to philosophical purity, will always remain ridiculous.
I really think a rigourous analysis of terms is necessary when speaking of American politics. It all seems so distorted to me that it's difficult to use any label at all. I mean, in a country where socialism and communism are conflated, the Democratic party is centrist at best and people balk at the thought of any sort of progressive taxation, isn't the American debate an extremely isolated and contorted one?
We have pretty freaking progressive taxation here. 40% of the population pays no federal income tax at all, and they are talking about increasing the rates of those making upwards of $200-250K back up to 39.6%.
pure_mercury's argument seems confused to me. I mean, the "right" to healthcare and the "right" to own slaves are completely different. Yes it's ridiculous to use the word right in all circumstances (which is your point), but it's also ridiculous to use these examples as premises for the argument you are propounding.
Neither are rights. That is the point. What is ridiculous about using them as examples?
Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"