I ought to be free to wildly swing my arms about, but doing so when walking near another individual raises the question, “Is exercising my right to swing my arms wildly without coercion superior to the right of another individual not to be hit by those arms?” The answer, of course, is no.

We have to be wise enough to surmise that this extends to probabilities as well. Consuming alcohol and driving does not necessarily impede the rights of others, but the combination of the (1) degree to which the right of another that it impedes (the liberty to go unmaimed and uninjured by others…without consent) is superior to the right(s) being exercised (to drink yourself silly and to drive) and (2) the probability that that the right being exercised will jeopardize the far superior right, conspire to create a circumstance in which a libertarian ought to favor or at least consider the need for a law to protect the ability of individuals to freely exercise their individual liberty.

Libertarianism can’t just be a knee-jerk aversion to laws – the non-arbitrary rule of law protects each of our abilities to operate independently in our own sphere. If texting while driving causes impairment of motor skills and vision to the extent that it poses a materially heightened probability of causing physical or material harm to another individual, the inferiority of your right to text to others’ rights not to have their car smashed by a 20-something in Daddy’s Prius on an iPhone makes this law potentially compatible with a libertarian view.

If your argument is simply that texting doesn’t cause that danger, then make that argument, because it’s a legitimate one, but it has zero, nada and zilch to do with the idea of liberty.