I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology, libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've always tho

I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology, libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've always thought, though, that it can only really apply to conscious human adults capable of weighing the pros and cons of their actions and relationships. When consequences or side-effects of their actions are pushed onto external parties incapable of disagreement (eg. the environment, children, animals) it gets murkier as actions become unilaterally beneficial to the party making each proposal. Here I think there is room for public consensus to come in and speak for the parties incapable of doing so. I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say 3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection. Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.