Morality does not fall magically from the sky
Obeying commands magically fallen from the sky blindly and without questioning is not being moral, but obedient. Somebody can be perfectly obedient, still immoral. Morality and obedience is two totally different concepts.
To be moral someone must be free to think, meditate and draw moral conclusions based on thought, reason and logic. Dogma is not freedom, dogma is tyranny. Dogma is to the field of ideas in the same way as the dictatorship is to the field of politics. That is, either you follow without question, or will be punished.
More on the subject: Objective Morality
We're quite on the same side on this issue. But I followed your link and I'm honestly puzzled. If you ascribe to objective morality, where does this morality come from?
I assume the answer is reason, but reason depends on premises. Even the most humane premise, like "avoid suffering" isn't above dispute. And it doesn't explain human behavior. So, where does moral objectivity comes from?
Reason is objective by definition. If you base your morality on something that is objective by definition, so your morality will be objective too.
The quest to understand the world purely through deductive logic is old and fruitless. To reason, we require premises. Get the wrong premises and all the reason in the world is worthless. I've seen many people proposing foundational values for an objective morality, such as reducing suffering, respect for private property, the principle of non-agression... but even if they are useful and have good outcomes, they're all still ultimately arbitrary
What I'm trying to say is: you can claim to base your morality on reason only after you have your foundational premises in place. Where do those come from?
I did not defend to use only reason, but reason and science, to base morality solely on known objective premisses, ie, reason and science, a rational-scientific morality, instead of a morallity based on personal faith or dogma.
If you understand that reason and science are both objective, than you will understand what I am saying.
Let's try reason. You can say: "Theft is wrong. Taxation is theft. Thus, taxation is wrong". The reasoning is solid, but why is theft wrong in the first place? You could say: "Injustice is wrong. Theft is unjust. Thus, theft is wrong". But this regression will continue until you find a premise that can stand on its own. Reason won't give it to you.
We can do this with science. We can test different groups of people and discover theft is positively correlated to poverty and violence. But on what basis can you argue that poverty and violence are wrong?
Sam Harris argues that these foundational premises are hardwired in our minds (at least for those who aren't psychopaths). But I will argue these premises are predominantly consequential in nature. In other words, we tend to think something is good based on its outcome, not on logical principles.
Accepting that morality is not objective doesn't mean it cannot be tackled with reason.
And just to say it: it doesn't exclude the possibility of a libertarian worldview either. But it makes the libertarian morality contingent to the benefits libertarianism would bring, which I'd suggest is a lot.
Simple logic, evrything you do that you did not like it would be done with you, is a priori wrong. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself and your own mind and logic.