> is the external circumstances that involve no violence or threats of it No, it's common sense. Do you honestly believe asking 100 people on the street that

> is the external circumstances that involve no violence or threats of it No, it's common sense. Do you honestly believe asking 100 people on the street that most would deem that voluntary? No, they would just say something like "yeah, it's sad, they had no other choice the poor fellas". That's not voluntary by any reasonable definition that's not self-serving. And in fact, it does involve the threat of violence, albeit indirect, in the form of starvation. Just because your notion of violence only conveniently recognizes direct violence doesn't mean that that's the objective truth. > The law here is that voluntary contracts are valid Once again, you're using the law to support a moral common sense question, "court of peers" are bound to judge according to what the current law says, not what they think is obviously true. > Employers did not create conditions that limited the options of job applicants. Well, of course not all, but certainly the largest one and the owners behind them. This is a system issue, not an individual one. > that seeks to demonize the successful to rationalize robbing them Sigh, more suggestions to envy as motivation. > It's a blatant lie that makes the logical leap that not assenting to mass-socialist expropriation is tantamount to depriving others of their legitimate rights. That's not really explaining to me what the lie is, just a temper tantrum. > It's a degenerate claim based on perverse ideological premises. What makes my claims "degenerate based on perverse ideological premises" but not yours? > You believe what others earned belongs to you Earned is subjective, and in many cases not even remotely true under Capitalism due obvious things like inheritance. > , and that you have a right to threaten them with violence to coerce them to forfeit it. It's actually the exact opposite. Abolishing private-property rights removes the owners right to violence. No need to do any violence from the side that are abolishing them. For example: land that one was forbidden to enter under the threat of violence from the property-owner is now free to pass through. Only the property owner's threat of violence has been removed. > you are the only one here advocating blatant violence and imposition Uhm, what's the blatant violence I'm advocating?