Good ending about it being a package deal. He needs to expand on that. I also like how he's starting to phrase the answers to questions about one extreme side of a freedom principle ("Heroin should be legal") with the less extreme side ("You should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to."). That should be expanded upon as well, and can be part of the "package" theory.
"When I argue for freedom, it is all too easy to take one extreme end of the spectrum and dismiss the argument outright because that extreme is unpleasant to deal with. If I argue that individuals should be free to do anything that doesn't hurt another individual, the easy extreme to pick is heroin. "So heroin should be legal?" It is all too easy then to shy away from the argument, but I believe that those extreme examples are simply a part of the package, and I will defend the extremes as well. That doesn't mean I believe that the extremes are good for humanity, but it does mean that I will defend that extreme just as fiercely. Just like we should not demonize lawyers who, honoring our justice system which believes that even the guilty deserve representation, decide to defend someone accused of even the most heinous crimes, we should not demonize people who, in defending liberty in general, decide to defend liberty for even the extreme cases. Defending a murderer in court that not mean you condone murder. It means that you understand that in order for our society to remain just and fair for all, even those who would be thought undeserving of that justice and fairness should receive it. Even heroin, although a dangerous drug that can ruin someone's life, should have a defender in the court of public opinion, because once we deem heroin to not deserve that justice and fairness, then it becomes all too easy to also deny less harmful and possible even some beneficial sustances that same benefit. I apply this principle across the board, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint is. We all agree that the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity committed against the world in general and the Jews in specific. Yet we didn't just shoot the nazis responsible on sight. We captured them, tried them in court, and then punished them for their actions. We can all agree that the terrorist attacks against the world over the last few decades and against the United States in specific were terrible. I argue that the ideal response is to capture those responsible and properly try them in our court system. This allows us to maintain our principled freedoms while punishing those responsible for their heinous actions. One of the possibly most divisive issues is that of racism. An ugly blight on our human condition, where we judge an individual not on merit but on preconceived and wholly unmerited notions, and where we treat those individuals as lesser, denying them our friendship and hospitality. However, to accept that we should all be free to socialize with whomever we want is to also accept that we are free to choose to not socialize with certain individuals. To accept that racism, no matter how ugly, no matter how small, will always have at least some place in our society. Racism, like heroin, like murderers, and like terrorists, is on one extreme side of the spectrum. But no matter how unpopular, and no matter how indefensible, trying to outlaw it will inevitably lead to restrictions on freedom on the other side of the spectrum. And no matter how hard we try, we just won't be able to successfully remove these unwanted elements from our society, no matter how many laws we come up with, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, and no matter how many freedoms we are willing to sacrifice.
All I will ask is that when these extremes come up in a discussion, to not assume that if I do not argue that these extremes can be removed from our society by law, that that automatically means I must be in favor of their existence. We can agree that we should always try to minimize the negative effect that these extremes have on our society, but we should do so in the understanding that we just have a differing opinion on how to best accomplish this."
