I wouldn't because its forcing others to do something they may not want to. This would be one of those areas that I'd support government funding to reduce costs of going environmental though. Its that type of spending that keeps me slightly on the left side economically.
I don't think the freedom to pollute is something you could consider a fulfilling right, and the result of allowing has potentially disastrous results.
We also need to be clear about the scope of what is permissible and what isn't. Having strict regulation of oil rigs in the gulf is something I wouldn't even consider debatable (at least not in the sense where I'm willing to credit the other side with a valid point--we're obviously free to debate to our hearts' content).
Whether or not we should raise the legal limit of acceptable CO2 omissions on the other hand, is something I'd say is debatable. I still fall on the side of environmental protection, because I don't think it's wise to allow every single American to ignore global CO2 levels because switching to a greener mode of transportation is inconvenient. I would definitely favor incentives to encourage people to switch/make it easier on top of such legislation as well.
I'd also support projects by the government to boost green public transit, like building trains.
Still, I would consider those emissions to be infringing on the rights of others to live healthy and happy lives in the long run. It might not affect them immediately, but it will down the road. And that's an easily predictable consequence, not a subtle one.
Sure. That's in that 1% of overlap. Of course, that 1% is also shared by most conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc as well. The problem is that other 99% of the social agenda which liberals and libertarians are in absolutely disagreement about. Again, think of the scale labels "Authoritarian vs Libertarian". This should give you the hint that libertarian is non-authoritarian (which is correct). Authoritarian means that some authority (the government typically) controls social outcomes. Think about how much of the liberal social agenda requires government action to make their desired outcomes happen. That's authoritarian and is the opposite of libertarian.
Your warped world is funny. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is going to take legislation because of the very nature of gov't as a collective ruling body. That's not to say that legislation is always about control. Yes, a gov't is going to need to pass legislation to say you aren't allowed to murder someone. But it's a law such that the sacrifice to human rights is vastly outweighed by the increase in them. That is to say the right of someone to not be murdered vastly outweighs the right of someone to murder.
Note how this legislation is entirely about ensuring that people don't have their rights infringed upon, even if it means that they need to prohibit certain things. That's the very nature of a social environment though, and does NOT mean represent fascism.
Look at the difference between these two scenarios:
1. A gov't tells you that you must go to <insert denominational> church every Sunday, can only have *** with your wife/husband, must dress in a specific uniform, go to the job they choose for you and work the number of hours they tell you to for a wage they decide.
That's clearly fascist (and an extreme example). Compare it to:
1. A gov't says that you are free to go to church on sunday, but are not allowed to prevent others who wish to from attending. You are allowed to have *** with who you choose, as long as it does not infringe on their right to choose not to have *** with you (which requires that the gov't accepts them as being rationally responsible for themselves, so no children). You are free to wear what you want, within the limitations of codes you agree to (a job may have a dress code, for instance). You are free to work where you want and negotiate your own pay (and choose to leave the job should you find the wages unacceptable). Etc.
Yes, you aren't totally free. But you will NEVER be able to have a society that guarantees everyone every right. Liberals are all about guaranteeing society as many rights as possible. Sometimes that means that certain rights need to be eliminated. But this is only justified when the result is a substantial increase in rights of the whole. And the rights you lose are almost always rights that aren't considered valuable beyond the right of choice (that is to say, they have no intrinsic value in and of themselves).
What I mean is this:
1. You might argue that the right to read and educate yourself (without censorship) is intrinsically valuable.
2. On the other hand, the right to throw your cigarette on the ground or in an ash tray really only has a value due to the fact that you get to choose which you do.