But you never actually refuted anything I said. You only claimed my assertions couldn't be true. Please revoke any statements you made about my assertions as a whole, or actually refute them. You can start with my statements about climate change, then proceed to my statements about libertarian think tanks and their propaganda. I'm waiting, because I never heard any refutation from you, only statements from you that my assertions had no merit.

Great, then why do you try to derive morals from one set of first principles?

Fix it. I'm waiting for your solution, because if you can't maintain your society, it's worthless. And when you provide that solution, fix the other many many flaws.

Not this again. It's like you saying sea levels don't rise when heat is absorbed by the ocean because I only asserted it, rather than write a 1,000 page introduction to physics.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

Oh, so you admit that your "free societies" never last because control is wrested from them just when things are getting good. That's a flaw.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning. 

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Perhaps my example was too simplistic. By 'program' I meant create and then unleash an autonomous system that would not be subsequently changed. This is analogous to AnCap's or Libertarianism's non-aggression principle, which someone once created, but now it always stays the same. To 'run' the NAP program you just follow simple instructions. The 'programmer' would be some philosopher who probably died long ago.

However, you inadvertently allude to another point: the morality of "just following orders" (just like a good, obedient soldier.) Arguably it's actually worse if a human blindly follows someone else's code, than a computer (or human body-part) where at least there's a responsible person in charge. Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think. They are abdicating responsibility for their actions, and couching their actions in terms of "being morally righteous because XYZ philosopher said so, here's the link".

Edit: just to flesh it out a bit more, it's important to distinguish between the morality of the philosopher versus the morality of his disciples. I contend that although the (probably deceased) Libertarian philosophers may have been extremely moral, their disciples might not be. Like I said, blind computer-like idolatry seems amoral.

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 

There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.

The lack of a robust State to maintain pesky "pro little people" laws, which would introduce distortions into the Libertarian economy?