Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, you're willing to: a) allow children to freely see vile pornography; b) allow a house of prostitution in your neighborhood; c) allow drugs to be marketed freely in your neighborhood. Some Christian.
Let me ask you a question: when the Christians finally succeeded in getting the Roman Coliseum closed down--imposing their view that murder is wrong--was that the right thing to do? Many of the gladiators "freely agreed" to fight to the death. Is dueling to the death wrong? Would you stop that?
Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?
Finally, here is how you dismiss the "fact-value" problem:
He is claiming to derive un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to his Objective of Not Being Murdered. The very term "value" implies a Moral Judgment which isn't even required for the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to accomplish an Objective.
Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values. Okay? This problem is also referred to as the "ought-is" problem. Same thing. OWK is saying that he "ought not" be murdered. You cannot derive an ought from an is.
Example: 2+2=4 is a fact. I ought not be murdered is a value. You cannot get from facts to values, or values to facts.
Again, 2+2=4 is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact, or a "noble" fact, or a "kind" fact. It is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact or a "good" fact. It's a fact. The existence of a gun is a fact. The existence of this gun does not tell you anything about how you ought to use that gun. You can use it for good or evil, but the gun itself is neither good nor evil.
Please examine this. I don't think you fully understand the implications of this...the reason that you're giving absurd answers like "I'd allow a giant billboard of child pornography in my neighborhood" is because you don't want to concede that libertarianism is absurd precisely because objective values, oughts or maxims are not derivable from facts.
QED
No, OWK is saying that he desires to not be murdered.
That is entirely different from a statement of "ought", which is a statement of Moral Value. OWK is not assigning any Moral Value to his desire to not be murdered; he is just acknowledging that this is his desire.
Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values.
No, they aren't.
Assuming no ski-lifts, helicopters, etc... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain.
The behavioral maxim is un-exceptioned; you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by sitting on your tuckus, you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by climbing down, reach the the top of the mountain by walking around the base in a circle... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain.
No assignation of Moral Value is necessary. And yet the behavioral maxim necessary to accomplishment of the Objective is un-exceptioned. Ergo, "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are NOT Values.
You hate this fact, because it blows your entire Fact-Value Gap argument out of the water. And yet, it is true.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, you're willing to: a) allow children to freely see vile pornography; b) allow a house of prostitution in your neighborhood; c) allow drugs to be marketed freely in your neighborhood. Some Christian.
As to your (A), I already stated that a man must Fence in his property sufficient to contain his Externalities (e.g., the Fence must be high enough to hide the obscene billboard).
As for drugs and prostitution...
When God wrote the Civil Laws of ancient Israel, He instituted no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, even though alcohol, hashish, opium, etc., were well known and commonly used in the Middle East. Likewise, He instituted no civil penalty whatsoever for (non-priestly) prostitution.
So let me ask you something, you who profess to be some kind of "Christian":
Answer the question.
I've asked you already, and I am going to keep asking you until you either repent of your State-Idolatry, or admit the fact that you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God.
Let me ask you a question: when the Christians finally succeeded in getting the Roman Coliseum closed down--imposing their view that murder is wrong--was that the right thing to do? Many of the gladiators "freely agreed" to fight to the death. Is dueling to the death wrong? Would you stop that? Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?
As a Christian Libertarian, these "challenges" aren't even difficult -- both are Violations of the Sixth Commandment.
I supposed that some Randians might have to chew on them a little, but for a Christian Libertarian the answer is as obvious as Romans 13:9-10:
So, having tossed away yet another red herring from your kettle of fish, I have to go back to the question you are dodging:
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God incomplete?
I'm just gonna keep hammering you with this, HV. Answer the question.
Right now, you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God. But you can Repent and become a Christian even yet.
No it's 'some' type of absurd reasoning, on your part. -- We long ago decided, constitutionally, that local standards are to prevail as to public nuisance type law, as long as individual rights are not violated by such law. None of your examples, as written, violate our BOR's, imo. Thus, they are valid local law, - supportable by constitutional libertarians.
Let me ask you a question: when the Christians finally succeeded in getting the Roman Coliseum closed down--imposing their view that murder is wrong--was that the right thing to do? Many of the gladiators "freely agreed" to fight to the death. Is dueling to the death wrong? Would you stop that?
Sure. Dueling to the death is messy, and upsets the horses.
Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?
Yes. He ate the only gay activist in the county.
Finally, here is how you dismiss the "fact-value" problem: He is claiming to derive un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to his Objective of Not Being Murdered. The very term "value" implies a Moral Judgment which isn't even required for the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to accomplish an Objective. Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values. Okay? This problem is also referred to as the "ought-is" problem. Same thing. OWK is saying that he "ought not" be murdered. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Example: 2+2=4 is a fact. I ought not be murdered is a value. You cannot get from facts to values, or values to facts. Again, 2+2=4 is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact, or a "noble" fact, or a "kind" fact. It is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact or a "good" fact. It's a fact. The existence of a gun is a fact. The existence of this gun does not tell you anything about how you ought to use that gun. You can use it for good or evil, but the gun itself is neither good nor evil. Please examine this. I don't think you fully understand the implications of this...
You don't seem to really understand that the above paragraph of gibberish is indeciperable. Get some new lines.
the reason that you're giving absurd answers like "I'd allow a giant billboard of child pornography in my neighborhood" is because you don't want to concede that libertarianism is absurd precisely because objective values, oughts or maxims are not derivable from facts.
Not true at all. - You absurdly insist that libertarianism is illogical, in the face of all proof.
Libertarians honor the orginal intent of our constitutional republics rule of law, - without question. - It's a very libertarian document.
- We object to, and question strongly, many of the subsequent 'rules' made which violate it's intent.
Let's cut a little closer to the bone here. Observation of nature shows that it operates according to something very close to Might Makes Right. Murder, rape, theft, enslavement -- all sorts of things happen that we claim to be wrong. The fact is that these things happen in nature, and objective reality doesn't appear to have a problem with it -- indeed, in many species this is How Things Are Done.
Humans have tended to be against such acts -- but even among humans this is not an absolute. Recall, for example, the recent article about Ghengis Khan's family tree.
From an examination of the evidence one might plausibly conclude that respect for "unalienable" rights is a mere convenience for groups of people who are unable to gain and wield Khan-like power.
The oughts of things like human liberty and unalienable rights are contradicted by the is that they don't seem to be absolute in nature.
Which inevitably brings us back to the Rabbi's point about the necessity of God for cutting that particular Gordian knot.