The point here would be freedom, and what freedom logically means is that I cannot initiate actions - initiate is the key word here - that violate your will, and neither can you to me.

If you and 50 people got together and all consented to a village of debauchery, drugs, prostitution, and drunk driving, so long as you all consented, I would allow you to live that lifestyle without interruption.

I might try to convince you that there are better ways to live your life, but I wouldn't use force against you to get you to stop.

But don't forget that this only applies because there's consent. If some of you enter our town where we do not agree to you doing drugs on my land or in my store, or driving drunk on the roads that our community all agreed to share ownership over, then we are justified if we not only ask you to stop or ask you to leave, but if we use violence against you to get to you if you refuse.

So to specifically answer your question, if you want to live the way you've described, you would absolutely be allowed to - by us, anyway.

In fact, we could even become allies whereas we agree to defend one another if another group were to come and try to use violence to force us into their ways.

The disconnect so many others face is only about freedom and nothing more. There is no such thing as a man so wise that he can make choices for other adults without their consent. Nobody knows better for me than I do and nobody knows better for my children than I do as their father (except an equal share, their mother.)

Even if you think you do, you don't. Opinions aren't facts, they're opinions. Even if you THINK you have a better way of living, you don't. The only time when you're objectively wrong is when you're utilizing violence for a victimless crime. Violence - legitimate, moral violence - is only for defense against things like murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud.

When other people don't get this it's because psychologically they're thinking at low levels. Low level thinking tends to be very isolated to the "me". The higher up you go the more you begin thinking that others have wants and needs just like you do, and that your wants and needs may conflict with theirs. Many people today still think in terms of, "I want this and therefore so must you, so if you are protesting, you must be wrong, or sinister". They cannot understand that someone else might have a want that differs from theirs, and that they aren't wrong for having it.

I would argue that there are two forms of morals - subjective and objective. Objective morals are surrounded by the NAP while subjective morals are things like, "I don't think you should smoke cigarettes because they could reduce your lifespan and that would cause pain to others around you, plus place additional burden on those providing healthcare and insurance."

There's no such thing as objective value, not even for human life, so to say your life holds value and thus, you shouldn't smoke is just an opinion.