Could some vocal zealot of the Libertine/Libertarian Party tell the rest of us if he/she is for this policy of "Prior Restraint" regarding drunk driving. For isn't the driver tooling around town drunk doing so in the privacy of his own automobile? Also, coining a pet phrase of the Libertine/Libertarian Party, (original: "I can swing my fists as much as I like, but my rights to do so ends at your nose.") "I can drive around drunk as much as I like, but my rights to do so ends at your car's bumper."
I do have a problem with perfectly well functioning drivers being pulled over, searched (in violation of their constitutional rights), and ticket for nanny-state seatbelt violations.
Kiss a jackboot today.
They want to remove the rights of others over their own business and property, if we want to do the same to them they get bent out of shape. They want to set up check points, it's their roads, bar owner wants to allow smoking, it's their bar. When the government learns to give us what they themselves expect maybe then people will have less of a problem with it.
Do you remember when mandatory seat-belt laws were being debated, it was asserted that no one would ever be pulled over for not wearing a seat-belt. It was to be only a secondary offense or fine on top of whatever traffic violation you were pulled over for. How soon we forget.
First of all, you do not have an understanding of libertarian philosophy (I could be mean spirited here, and say you're trolling for flames, etc, however...) Libertarians do not, on principle, initiate force or fraud against a person or their property. This is called the principle of "non-initiation of force".
"Public" roads are owned by all of us, through our tax dollars. Getting a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. So, when you get a drivers license, you, as an adult, agree to a contract to use public roads where society has set forth rules of use of said public roads. These include common sense issues like using turn signals and only driving in one lane at a time. You also agree to abide by the speed limits, and to not drive drunk.
When you drive drunk, you are initiating fraud against the public. That is a "crime", because you have violated the terms of your contract (to not drive drunk on public roads).
Life is about freedom to make choices, and taking responsibility for the consequences. You are free to make a choice (to rob my place of business, for example), but you must be responsible for the consequences (that I will shoot you).
So, DUI and DWI laws are ok. Seat belt laws, on the other hand, are not ok. That is a stupid law, where the actions for your decision to not wear a seat belt do not harm anyone but you (except possibly your family).
Private insurance companies should be free to mandate, as part of your vehicle insurance policy, that you must wear your seatbelt, or you will not be eligible for their payout in the event that you do not. But it should not be a law, and not wearing your seatbelt should not be "probable cause" for the police to pull you over and search your vehicle.
I hope this answers your question.