enigm4tic, it seems to me that you don’t use your theory very much in describing your views on the three topics I raised. This doesn’t make your views invalid, but it does suggest that the theory doesn’t capture much of your position. As for the issues.
Taxation. Where did the concept that education is a service that “private endeavors would not sufficiently cover or have no profitable interest in” come from? You know, of course, that lots of kids receive private education. Why not all of them? Indeed, most libertarians I’ve read take the position they should be. As for welfare, why is it a necessary evil? Unless you’re admitting that libertarianism isn’t always the right answer. As for altruism, any basis for believing that it would (as opposed to could) fill the gap? I can think of no time or place in all of history where it has.
Anti-discrimination laws. (It can be done either way; I’ll follow you and use the hyphen.) In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need laws against murder, but we do. The question is whether this is a liberal or libertarian policy. If intentionally withholding a benefit is causing a harm, the exception pretty much swallows the rule. I probably could justify the entire liberal agenda in such terms. Also, notice that you’re forcing the racist to surrender his goal. As mentioned upthread, your rubric doesn’t tell us much about how to address conflicting goals.
Drug laws and gun control. You skipped the latter completely, except to state you are opposed. Obviously we can (and do) punish people for using guns inappropriately. Gun control laws seek to prevent the harm. Why is that wrong? Meanwhile, you seems to be signing up for drug control. As you may know, that’s very not libertarian. I’m a great believer in Emerson’s Dictum (a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds), but this is a big inconsistency. If we wait till risky behavior creates harm to punish, that should apply to drugs. To emphasize, the point of all this isn’t drug policy as such. (Indeed, I oppose drug laws, but on other grounds.) I’m testing your theory. As regards speeding, I can’t tell whether you support or oppose. Your theory is so loose it appears you could be going either way. And where did “almost certainly will result in negative consequences” come from? Most of our risk regulations, drugs and speeding included, have much lower probability assumptions. And clear and present danger has nothing to do with it; that’s actually a legal standard for restricting free speech (e.g., printing the sailing times of warships, a Supreme Court case in WW1). Similarly, you’ve mistated the law on alcohol. DWI is illegal on the basis of risk, not whether you actually hurt someone. Whereas public intoxication is punished mostly because we find it unpleasant (and to a lesser extent because it creates risk). Another clash of goals.