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.
If you don't like it leave.
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.
A mouse click can bring a much more painful death than a gun.
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.