I don't think you can get to 3, especially if you don't assume 2.So to your last thing I only need 1 A god exists. 2 That it's mine would be nice but not neccesary, again if Islam is true then Allah and his prophets would be morally good. Our debate is not that deep. As for 3 God has moral authority for the same reason he has physical authority. The bolded section above explains God has sysadmin access and thus he can create and manipulate the physical and moral laws of the universe. As long as he is truly omnipotent of course.
If you don't assume 2, it could be a complete deist god, who just created the universe then fucked off and stopped giving a shit, one who has no opinion on morality at all. Or maybe he's just an asshole, like the greek gods.
Even if we give 2, then again, you assume by writing the rules of the physical universe, he can write the rules of morality. But these are not connected. Sure, maybe he's a programmer who has his own score card for each person that he calls morality. But that just, like, his opinion, man. Why should we pay attention to what the programmer thought was the purpose of creating the world? And you say 'but he's god, and he can set the rules', but I'll counter with 'Why should we obey those rules instead of ones we make up?'
Basically, you've leveled up your god from someone who is omniscient & omnipotent to one who also defines concepts or even can do illogical things (like create a rock he can't lift, etc). That's an added assumption on the power of God. You could treat that as part of 1, but I think that's a pretty big ask.
Note that the number of assumptions (once you hit a non-zero number) isn't really a big deal, tbh, unless it gets absurd or they contradict each other. Like the basics of mathematics uses 8 + 1 optional one.
They are indirectly assumed, when you assume God exists. That's what I'm saying. Just because you made your assumption further back doesn't negate my assumption.I said above that God solves the Is Ought dillema. Like above if God exists he can make moral laws as "real" as physical laws for example without God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "We ought to not steal from others" With God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "It is wrong to steal from others"
Without God you have to directly assume a moral truth, with God you just have to assume a God exists. But moral truths are not assumed.
I would say that an Ancap is a subset of libertarianism. So yeah, that would be a libertarian response. Though note it's also only a subset of Ancaps who would say that, as Ancaps think that all land should be privately held, and immigration could be argued to be trespassing (there's a lot more than this, and it's a long, complicated argument that TBH, I'm not sure I back, but I also don't know it well. I'm just noting it's an argument some make.) Basically, there are small gov libertarians and Ancaps on both sides of immigration, as well as establishment libertarians (think CATO and Reason) who are generally for immigration.Then they are ancaps, not libertarians, random starving foreigners on the streets are not good for business (ask Paris, San Francisco or others if in doubt, they did that experiment for us) and so have to be dealt with one way or another.
Personally, as it comes to Palestinians, I want the Justin Amash Palestinians, the ones that love freedom, and I don't want any other ones. No idea how to filter for that though.