Martin claims that:
libertarians...forget that even in the smallest of all possible British states, the authorities would retain a monopoly on forceand that could justify:
banning alcohol from public places.
Again, the libertarian position is a bit more nuanced than that. First, individuals in a libertarian limited state would retain the right of self-defence. The state wouldn't enjoy a monopoly on all uses of force. Second, what is a "public space"? The Tube is arguably a public place (given its current ownership), but "public" houses aren't. Nor are football stadia for that matter. Libertarians think that the Tube should be privatised thus ceasing to be a "public place" but rather a place into which the public are allowed to enter subject to the owner's regulations - just like on the railways. There's an important difference. The rules concerning entry that are set by the owners could include an alcohol ban.