"the right to privacy" and "I'm not a Libertarian, but..."

From an interview by Annamarie Adkins with philosopher Janet E. Smith-- on her book, The Right to Privacy-- excerpted in Touchstone...

Smith opens with some important observations about "the right to privacy":

The right to privacy has become a very elastic right; it has been used to legalize contraception, abortion, assisted suicide and homosexual acts.

Virtually no one can give a coherent explanation of what this right is and what it legitimately protects. It has become a wild card that permits the courts to advance a very liberal -- not to say libertine agenda -- often overriding the decisions of state legislatures and courts.

I would add that such incoherence is quite common. To note, "conservatives" of various stripes want to use the government for all sorts of things that are not coherent.

No one is denying that there are actions that are rightly private and bear no intervention by the state. The state certainly shouldn’t be telling us what to eat for breakfast or what newspaper to read.

But if actions seriously impact upon the rights of others and sometimes our own well-being, the right to privacy cannot rightly be invoked to protect those actions. We have a culture that is fairly schizophrenic on these matters.

Interestingly, the commenter in Touchstone reflects the same incoherence. But Smith sets this up properly: when does the govt intervene to try to prevent my actions from influencing others?

Then an incoherent allergy from Smith:

I am certainly not a libertarian, but I do subscribe to the position that it is best to have as few laws as possible.

The goal of life on a natural plane is to become as virtuous as possible; the goal of life on a supernatural plane is to become as holy as possible. Virtue and holiness can only be gained through free and not coerced choices. Indeed, a virtuous populace needs fewer laws, for their virtue will keep them from harming others.

Nonetheless, law is certainly necessary both to protect innocent people from harm by the evil people and to help lead everyone to virtue. Certainly actions that do great harm to others must be illegal or the state is not doing its job.

It is not the job of the state to eliminate all vice, though it may want to discourage vice by means of various public programs, such as those that alert the public to the dangers of some types of behavior.

Uhhh...strong and limited government that doesn't use laws to protect people from themselves? That sounds quite/completely Libertarian to me! C'mon, Janet! Go ahead, it's ok to admit that you're a Libertarian...