I disagree with this. Imagine man who walks into a crowded room with a bomb which is controlled by a computer system tied to his heart rate. If his heart continues to beat for three minutes the bomb will explode. If his heart does not continue to beat for three minutes, the bomb will disarm itself. It is not a rights violation of the man if he is killed by people in the crowd. The potential to do harm can not be discounted. Drunk driving should not be illegal, in the ideal libertarian world the roads are owned by private industries. These private industries can contract the use of their roads. If people wish to use the roads, they must contract into accepting a legal limit for their BAC. If they go over this limit, they have violated the contract to use the road and thus can be penalized to the extent agreed upon in the contract. If they use the road without entering into the contract, they are trespassers and can rightfully be charged with trespassing and stealing. If a road owner sets no legal limit in their contract for road usage, then people can drive as drunkenly as they wish, and people wishing to avoid drunk drivers will take their business to other road providers or transportation providers. It is not good business to allow drunk driving on the roads, as people who do not want to die will refuse to use these roads. Transportation is one of the most difficult subjects to handle from a libertarian point of view so it is rather a difficult question. However it is insane to think that the potential damages from a person can not be taken into consideration, or do you really think that it is a violation of the bombers rights if he is killed before his bomb explodes?