And yes, I should have used "may". Thanks for that.
Ok, so let's deal with your "argument".
"It is no more vexing to libertarian ethics (with the obvious correction of "can't destroy it" to "may not destroy it") -- it's not mine; therefore I may not destroy it."
Hey, fantastic. I wish all abortion doctors thought like you. The unborn child isn't theirs, so they *may not* destroy it. In fact this is pretty compelling. It fits neatly within the old libertarian property rights framework. Nice and clean.
But see, here's the problem. You, an atheist, believe that people are nothing more than material, i.e. glands, chemical reactions, muscle, bone and such and such. So, you may not be able to hurt anyone else; as you say, their life isn't "yours" so you may not destroy or damage the lives of others.
Unfortunately for your children, this doesn't mean them. You see, if you're an atheist, your children are "yours". You created them. Under my versions of Judeo-Christian theism, children are something created by the union of a man and a woman and God. So, if I or my wife begin abusing our children, society can rightly claim that it may remove my children from my custody; they have worth beyond simply what I have biologically given them. Your atheistic construction demands nothing of the sort. You created your children, they're "yours" and thus you can have your way with them.
Kind of like the Roman doctrine of Patriae Potestas; a father could kill any of his children with just cause. Not a pleasant idea, I think.
It's amusing to hear secularists talk about Christianity taking us back to the "Dark Ages". You guys seem to love the real Golden Oldies: the depravities of the Roman Empire.
You know Steve, that wasn't bad for a first go at it. You almost had something going there. But what the heck. Go ahead and try again. I'm game.
P.S. You stated earlier that I don't understand libertarianism. Well, considering that I've read every Ayn Rand book at least once, most twice or three times; read Mises' Human Action, Rothbard's Man State and Economy; Nozick; Spooner; Carl Menger; Bastiat; Hayek and more or less every other major tract put out by important libertarians I think I have a good idea. I also subscribe to Liberty Unbound, the monthly libertarian rag. But, you know what--why don't you educate me. Why don't you lay out what you call the "inflexible" rules of libertarianism.
Yes, and I daresay Clinton read some books that explain the concepts of honesty, courage, etc. Whether one understands what one has read is a separate question.
From your repeated assertions that libertarianism lacks fixed ethical principles, it is plain that your reading comprehension in this case leaves something to be desired.