Where exactly did I say that consensual exchange ends in violence? I was asking you how consensual exchange ends in violence. I don't see where violence logically follows from consent.
"Superior to the majority culture"
What does that even mean, exactly? Is it your claim that violence is moral if the majority say so? Wouldn't the holocaust have been moral by the standard you put forth.
Again, how do my feelings have anything to do with anything? How could there be more than one "morality system"? Under what circumstances would rape, slavery or genocide be moral of morality is subjective?
To claim that you aren't taking a stance while simultaneously putting forth a series of claims in support of your position strikes me as dishonest, as do the baked in premises in your questions. Begging the question is yet another logical fallacy.
Burden of proof is still on statists. Anarchists don't have to prove why anarchy is superior to statism (or why consent is superior to violating consent) but statists do have to prove that the state exists, that it has authority and that people have a moral obligation to obey men and women who call themselves government.
My argument is that there are other forces in the world than right and wrong, and when people can't agree on what right and wrong means, those other forces are what rule.
Do you eat meat? Have you ever killed a plant? what about that bacteria you wash down the drain when you brush your teeth? What gives you the right to do any of these things, and is it ok? Are you going to tell the dolphins that gang rape one of their own for weeks that they are wrong (it's a thing)? What about ducks and roosters where every act of sex could be seen as rape?
This may seem extreme, and beside the point but yes, there is more than one morality system on this planet and in this universe, and yes its subjective.
I think there is [subjective!] value in what you are posting about, you've outlined some really solid critiques but as it is presented, because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread).
The burden of proof argument becomes completely null unless it's acknowledged by both parties, as i'd still argue that the two groups are working from different sets of morality. You seem to argue that it doesn't matter cause the described morality "praxeologicaly absolutely the truth" and statists are violating it. As far as the described morality, the burden of proof is on you, cause i say that is absolutely an assumption.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with dolphins or plants because dolphins and plants aren't moral agents. You've moved the goalpost so far at this point that I don't think we're even in the same solar system anymore (no pun intended). Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to rape, murder, or enslave people? Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to violate the bodily integrity of others? If they are just going to use violence either way, it's not even a debate. It's your claim that the burden of proof is on the rape victim to demonstrate why they shouldn't be raped? Because I don't know about you, if someone tries to violate my bodily integrity, I'm going to give them more than a few harsh words.
If you've arrived at a moral conclusion that condones rape, you've made a mistake in your reasoning and need to start over.
"Because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread)."
What problem? I don't see a problem here. Given that we aren't talking about dolphins or plants, under what circumstances would it be okay for you as a moral agent or any other moral agent to rape or enslave someone? Do you have an answer to this that doesn't involve moving goalposts?
If humans are the same as dolphins and plants and bacteria then why are you having this conversation with me instead of having it with a dolphin, a plant or a bacteria? As much as I appreciate the discussion, your demonstrated preference betrays your claims. I'm not sure whether you're dishonest or confused but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
dude i'm not saying i think it's ok to rape, i'm pointing out that your absolute rights are fuzzier than you claim them to be. You can draw the line at humanity if you like, but if you spend any time with that definition you will find that it isn't any less messy.
My point and the "morality problem" i'm talking about is that you have to understand people and groups have different perspectives and they can be absolutely stubborn. You and I are proving that in every exchange so far. Sorry bud, i'm right, I think. So are you, you think.
I'm saying the burden of proof argument isn't good enough, it changes nothing, contributes nothing to changing culture. It's rooted in dogma that you can't recognize because it's your own. All it says is "you know what, we are right, not them!"
Maybe your point is to preach to the choir, but if you ever want to reach others who maybe don't entirely agree with you, you need to expand your argument.