That is why I compare you to a theologian. You are telling me what to think. You are telling me what you think is moral and immoral, and you expect me to agree with you. If I disagree with your axioms, then you call me a sociopath. The theologian would call me a heretic. The theologian speaks of forbidden fruit. You speak of healthy and unhealthy fruit. To me they are just fruit. I hate you both passionately.
I am simply stating what I believe.
I regard anyone who would accept aggressive violence as moral as a sociopath.
K, then. I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.
That is quite ironic, since it is the libertarian's stance that you should be free to follow your own moral codes - as long as you do it on your own property- and that no one has the right to impose their moral codes on others, while it is the Keynesians' stance that politician economists should decide what is moral and immoral, and force those moral codes onto others (e.g. socialism).
So does that mean you regard those who pass such morality codes as minimum wage laws, social security/welfare, housing subsidies, etc as theologians?
Those are legal codes. Why must you bring in morality?
Those legal codes are legislating morality. The legal codes make the statement that it is immoral to have people earn too little, it is immoral to let poor people starve, and it is moral to make sure everyone has a house. They also make a statement that it is moral to take things from those who have things to take, in order to make all those moral things happen. And since these moral decisions are made by Keynesian politicians, and forced upon even those who would disagree with them, by your own words those Keynesians are theologians
Why are you assuming that the law was constructed with moral objectives in mind? Did God create the law in your book?
I thought politicians created the law and that politicians were self-serving. Why would they have designed laws in order to make moral things happen? I think rather that they designed self-serving laws. In societies with strong, powerful states, these self-serving laws tend to coincide with the interests of average people. In societies with weak states, laws coincide with the interests of a narrow group which the ruler depends on for support. Typically, it is a happy thing to be a citizen of a strong state. You can then live in an environment with reasonable laws that support general prosperity. It is a very sad thing to be the citizen of a weak state. You then live in a state with arbitrary laws designed to support the prosperity of a small group at the expense of everyone else. The main reason why places like China are oppressive is that the rulers/ruling institutions are not stable enough to ensure control over the country.
There are exceptions when rulers do stupid things, of course. But stupid rulers are not the main problem. Even when a strong state does something really stupid (e.g. Soviet Union), their citizens still tend to fare much, much better than citizens of weak states. The main problem is that states are too weak. Weak states are forced to rely on brutal measures that leave the bulk of their citizens poor, while enriching small elite groups.
AnCap, in my view, means many weak states. This is equivalent to enslavement, poverty, and brutality. Statism means freedom, prosperity, and security. Yay Statism! Down with AnCap.