Talking about how the moral nature of an action changes in different categories and circumstances does not mean it's subjective.
oh yes it is. very much so. this is all what morality is all about. environment. Inuits eat their younglings if the winter is harsh because logic dictates that they can try next year, but they have to survive. If they had enough resources they wouldn't resort to such an act.
This too is an example of how the circle of empathy is expanding and more people are coming to see war as murder.
irrelevant. war and crime is as popular as before. it just changes face. speaking of, if morality was subjective stealing wouldn't exist. The reason stealing exists is because some parties view economic acts different than others. If morality was objective all countries in the world would have more or less the same judicial system. if it was objective people 2000 years ago would act much the same as today. The reason those guys talk about objective reality is because they try to bring a new sense of ethos into the same, one that is more atheistic. they have a narrative but no evidence that this is the case.
Saying the middle class diminishes implies a loss which I'm saying is not the case on a more objective level. If the standard of living of the poor today is higher than that of kings in the past, that is not a loss according to my framing of it because, as you said, it's not zero sum, though you saying "some win, some lose" implies you believe it is.
you are missing something. buying power. You can have more than the kings of the past and still not being able to afford basic things. wtf logic is this man?
Who's being overly dramatic here? IMO, this is a ridiculous statement. "Clicks" in free markets uncontrolled by threats of violence don't bring about painful death unless you're referencing something I'm not familiar with.
A click for shorting in a free-market can foreclose homes and bring companies on their knees, with hundreds of thousands being led off as it was the case with most economic crisis. You were saying?
Most likely, governments were involved creating monopoly situations backed by threats of violence. We don't see much of that in cryptocurrency, do we?
You are hanging by the lips of 5 bitcoin pools from China. They don't threat you with violence. You don't have to have bitcoins. but if you have invested everything in bitcoin and something goes bad because they are greedy (or whatever reason) then you are as fucked as having someone shoot you. I would argue a death by a gun is better than dying slowly from a market that has been manipulated on the "free" world. <-- whatever that means.
Naming geographical locations on the globe doesn't mean someone can live there voluntarily.
oh yes you can. You can pretty much live off the grid. many do already. This is why I named them.
At other times, you seem to respond with a lot of negative emotion like you had a bad night's sleep or something. I get you don't like voluntaryism / anarchism or those who believe the world can be improved by removing government (which I define as a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic region).
I adhere to an-cap principles longer than you have (if I take notice the time you got into BTC). What I don't like is seeing overblown statements about anarchy or the ills of the government or how "awesome" BTC is. you need to be critical. Most people in the anarcho-space are not.
Remember. A government is nothing more than an entity of consensus that has existed for a long time. Whether you like the rules or not is irrelevant. It is what it is and you can opt out any time you want. We are not living in North Korea.