There are a number of arguments for freedom and less government that are frankly, stupid. Like:
* It is my choice if I want to smoke and kill myself from it. Hey, I like the taste.
* It is my choice if I want to eat fast food and be obese and have health problems.
* It is my choice to not get health insurance coverage and put myself at risk if I have health problems, so either I die or someone else has to pick up the bill.
* It is my choice to do high risk things for thrills, eventhough I know I may die from doing such.
* It is my choice to come under the influence of alcohol, and drive if I want to.
* It is my choice to use an incandescent light bulb if I want to, even if they have far less life than other alternatives and cost more long-term: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678387/kill-the-myth-incandescent-bulbs-are-not-banned.
* It is my choice to use a check cashing place instead of a bank.
* It is my choice to blow all my money on lottery tickets, or gamble it away.
* It is my choice to put my money in pyramid schemes and bankrupt myself.

If you want to argue for freedom, saying people have a right to be stupid isn't a good argument. Arguments a small child would make are NOT one that strengthens your argument. If you want to argue for more freedom, what is needed is to argue such freedom would be used wisely. Think this is an argument for a nanny state? Nope, it is an argument that freedom is not to be argued for from a position of wanting to be stupid.

First off, who is claiming that pyramid/ponzie schemes should be legal, that people should have the right to drink and drive, or that anyone (besides the person who smokes) should pay for the health problems associated with smoking? From what I have seen no one is advocating fraud, claiming that people should be able to endanger others, or that people should be protected from the consequences of their poor decisions ...

Beyond that, the vast majority of things people do that bring them joy are seen of as being "stupid" and "wasteful" by the majority of people and where do you draw the line at the government preventing you from doing what you choose for "your own good"?

Does protecting people from making bad investments also mean that the government has a right to prevent people from getting worthless degrees?

Does protecting people from taking part in unhealthy behaviours mean that they can ban videogames because they promote inactivity?

Does trying to encourage environmentalism justify forcing people to live in tiny spartan apartments with few luxuries because anything more than that is wasteful?

Or to simplify the questions, are you calling for a state that is made up entirely of bland joyless existence or are you the typical big-government hypocrite who wants people to not have the right to do what you don’t approve of?

Don't argue for more freedoms and rights based up a desire to do stupid things.  Stupid here isn't referring to silly things, but harmfully stupid.  I have gone to a number of Libertarian meetings, for example, and what is argued for freedom there is things that look like not being responsible.