"Entirely"? Have you read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape or Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour? Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of Our Nature touches on how morality changes over time, but it's not (IMO) completely subjective because it can be seen taking a specific course as the circle of empathy expands given our improving position on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
I have. So what? Is it valid just because they say so? Simply, when you are at war and you kill someone is defense against an imaginary piece of land. In times of peace is murder. Referencing others with weak points doesn't make yours more valid.
There you go again with that fixed pie, zero sum thinking. We talked about this before. It's a flaw in how you go about framing other topics, IMO.
Again. I am not a zero sum guy. I told you. Again, the wealth increases, FOR EVERYONE but the gap widens which make it seem very much like a zero sum thing. Which part from this you can't understand? Google it. The millionaires and billionaires increase and the middle class diminishes. Some win, some lose. This is how evolution works. Anything else goes against nature itself.
This is a significant mischaracterization, IMO. "Wealth" doesn't come to my house with a gun and threaten me with violence or throw me in a cage if I don't obey.
You are being over-dramatic now. No need to go Dollar vigilante tinfoil. There are rules that you agree to take part. If you don't like it leave.
Wealth doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic region. Wealth can be anything people believe it to be. Wealth involves natural monopolies, not artificial ones backed by violence. If you don't like bitcoin, pick a different one with a model which better suits your worldview. There are hundreds to choose from:
There are also many countries to chose from but as much as it applies to FIAT a whale can make a move and people can starve. A mouse click can bring a much more painful death than a gun.
Yes, there is a power dynamic and a mechanism of control in wealth for those who choose to operate within a given system. You still have choice. There is no choice when it comes to government. We are born into it and we have no other place to live which allows for voluntary living.
Bullshit. There was always plenty of places. Here is one. I can also name plenty of places in Australia, Mongolia, Africa, Russia, Latin America. You just want it catered based on the current economic system aka WITH a government. Otherwise you will have morons like TDV ripping people off in Chile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
As to the misuse of the word "legitimate", I agree with you. For a long time, I misunderstood that word to be synonymous with justified, moral, etc. This is just another symptom of our programming. We are taught from an early age via indoctrination camps known as public schools to believe what is good and bad is defined by government.
You can be taught similar things from the blockchain. So what? We are all brainwashed. It is inevitable. It is part of being human.
I don't think their points are week, or I wouldn't bring them up. They argue morality is not as subjective as you are describing but have objective aspects to them rooted in our evolution and brain structure. Talking about how the moral nature of an action changes in different categories and circumstances does not mean it's subjective. Yes, during war it's not called "murder" (even though that's exactly what it is). This too is an example of how the circle of empathy is expanding and more people are coming to see war as murder. Same thing goes for cutting someone open with a knife. If there's consent, it might be a life-saving surgery. Context matters unless you're over-simplifying on purpose to avoid important details.
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. If I arbitrarily give one person $1,000 and another person $10 can we really say the second person "lost" $990 or anything at all? No, they gained and that's an objective reality.
And go where? Those who enforce non-consensual "contracts" and have a monopoly on force love this argument because it allows them to ignore the deeper issues of consent. If two adults don't agree to a contract without coercion, it's not a contract. If most forms of government on the planet today resemble a form of slavery (even if things are much better than they once were) that doesn't make it okay and it doesn't mean we can't continue expanding the circle of empathy to reach a point where individuals and society really could function via voluntary means and actual contracts.
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. Most likely, governments were involved creating monopoly situations backed by threats of violence. We don't see much of that in cryptocurrency, do we?
Naming geographical locations on the globe doesn't mean someone can live there voluntarily.
You confuse me, @kyriacos. Sometimes we have fun, respectful, interesting discussions. 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). Okay. We disagree. We can still discuss our views respectfully.
I don't call your views bullshit, and I ask for the same level of respect in return.