The problem with your arguement about certain behaviors (porn, drugs, etc) is that you are trying to regulate them NOT because they result in actual harm to 3rd parties but because they have the POTENTIAL to cause behaviors that do.
Libertarians don’t believe in punishing people for harm they MIGHT potentialy cause but for harm they ACTUALY cause.
Using your example, eating red meat SHOULD be illegal too. It’s been scientificaly established that eating red meat leads to a higher risk of heart attacks. It’s been empericaly proven that people who suffer heart attacks while operating machinery (i.e. motor vehicles) often can lead to injury of innocent 3rd parties. Therefore red meat should be illegal because of it’s POTENTIAL for harm.
By that same token, being born a minorty should be illegal too. It’s statisticaly established that minorties commit an disproportionate percentage of violent crimes in the country. Therefore being born one has a higher POTENTIAL to result in harm to others...and therefore should be illegal.
Clearly that’s absurd. To a libertarian, it’s as absurd as outlawing porn simply because SOME people who indulge in porn have a greater likelihood to go out and commit rape. You punish the ACTUAL commission of the crime.... not something that MAY or MAY NOT (depending on the individual) make the crime more likely.
In other words, we don’t make everyone wear diapers because on person shts their pants.
No, actually, we regulate them because they ALREADY HAVE resulted in actual harm, and have the potential to do so again in the future.
This is the same reason we outlaw drunk driving. It has already killed thousands - i.e. presented ACTUAL HARM. We regulate it despite the fact that not everybody who gets behind the wheel drunk is necessarily always going to harm someone by doing so - i.e. there is only the POTENTIAL for them to harm someone.
There's no logical difference.
See, this argument is an example of how libertarians don't grasp the concept of actual/potential harm. You're including a number of intermediary steps in your example: Eat red meat - can lead to heart attack - can have heart attack while operating machinery - can injure others as a result.
Drugs, for instance, don't have the intermediary steps: Drug user is addicted and needs a fix - drug user shoots someone and steals their money to buy drugs. That's a potential scenario, but it's DIRECT harm. It's also a potential scenario which has played itself out as an actuality far too many times for me to count.
Libertarians try to argue that "indirect harm" means "nebulous, nanny-statist invented harm", which is simply not try. A drug user who takes drugs harms himself by taking the drugs and destroying his own mind and body. If that were ALL that that happened, I'd say, "Well, that's his poor choice, but it's his life". Unfortunately, the indirect effect of a drug user taking drugs is that he gets addicted and needs more drugs and more drugs and more drugs. Eventually, he runs out of money, and presents a threat to fellow citizens in that he commits crimes to get money to feed his addiction. There is nothing nebulous or contrived about that threat to the liberties of others.