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.
Are you this dense? Do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon? Answer me that...do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon?
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.
I know why you won't admit this. Because if you do, your libertarian ideology (again, you're not a Christian, you're a libertarian--I know that now by your tolerance of public displays of simulated child pornography.)
Ok, the guy who murdered the other guy to eat him...forget about that. Let's just say that a guy wants to eat another human. He pays someone who is terminally ill $5,000 dollars to let him eat him after he dies of natural causes. Ok? There's no coercion or initiation of force. The guy voluntarily agrees to be eaten, after he dies of natural causes.
You've already conceded that your belief system would tolerate the public display of simulated child pornography--hey, why not cannibalism?
Is voluntarily contracted cannibalism O.K. with you? How about ownership of nuclear weapons?
There's no end to the fun you can have with libertarians...