This is What I Get for Not Drinking More Coke

I was doing a back-read on Orrin Judd's work -- like I said before, I can't keep up any more -- and I came across this:

Libertarianism in its most extreme, or most immature, form rebels against the notion that even God can limit liberty. That rebellion is the point at which it turns into mere license. Like all extremisms, it envisions itself as uniquely pure and uncompromised, but it must be obvious that having abandoned the idea of a Creator and rights as issuing from Him, this kind of libertarianism becomes incoherent. For if Man is not endowed with dignity by virtue of being Created, then what is the basis for saying that the individual should be inviolate? It can only be that you say it should be so--but if I believe otherwise, necessarily with equal validity, then what may I not do to you? And so a doctrine of liberty that has no other basis than the individual and his capacity to imagine freedom will descend into anarchy. Nietzsche offers a typically cogent aphorism that captures the danger: "[M]an would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose." And because it is the nature of men to demand not just freedom but security, they will insist that someone put an end to the anarchy; that something fill the void, and, the internal restraints of religion and tradition having been destroyed, there will be no one left to intervene between men but the State. Thus does an ideology which ostensibly aims at maximum freedom render a system of minimal freedom.

That is but a small, nibbling bit; the whole is worth more than a few minutes of your time.

It is my dream to someday be as thoughtful as this man.