Mr Johminitt,If by drinking and driving you mean drinking enough that you would be over the limit in, for instance, most European countries then I'm sorry but that is not freedom, that is sheer arrogance - "my will is so important I must be free to endanger other people by drinking and driving" (and whether you have had an accident yet or not, doing that does increase the risk of an accident).
So the state (as representative of the whole population) must not impose its moral standards on you, but you can impose your behaviour on others.
Rather like the slave owner whose freedom to own other people meant he stole even more fundamental freedoms from those people.
(Before you mention 2018 yet again, a great many people realised that contradiction in 1860 too).
And that is where your 'ultra-liberalism' would lead - dictatorship by those strong enough to impose their freedom on other people and restrict their freedom, if there is no state power to redress that balance.
May I ask you... if you are liberal and like liberalism? Yes I drink and never had problem because I know the responsability...when the State imposes an arbitrary limit of alcohol in blood (0.8 in the golden age of freedom, until the 90s) 0.2 under the parameter of democratic totalitarianism .. exerts a previous violence on people. On individualism.
You can penalize "for damages" ... not for "principles" ... if people from a "race" or ethnicity commits more crimes than others in proportion to its population ... Do we establish prior controls? If a drunkard has an accident ... OK.. he must to pay... but if another drunkard drives and has never had a single problem...he does not have to submit to the state's prior control.
But What Hell is the State to control nothing? LEVIATHAN... not ony is enough to pay money to it... beside to live according what it is desired by it...and to believe in its morale and all that Fck limitation of the Freedom.