What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth is therefore man's for the taking. Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature.
If you are born rich you are born rich, caste is irrelevant.
In any capitalist society your caste is determined by birth, but not totally so,
your life choices are overwhelmingly limited by your birth caste. If you are born poor and for some reason you are not the victim of poor dietary habits, exposed to hideous psychological traumas, educated in a lacklustre way maybe you might grow up to be rich.
(children are victims, they cannot control their environment).
Morally acceptable force is everywhere.
Police is a socially acceptable community based force. Community based force is not inherently moral/immoral.
Ownership does not rely on inequality, if everyone has a toothbrush there is no issue.
But when ownership = inequality it becomes immoral.
To use community force to correct an immoral reality is not immoral.
your idea of force is poorly presented. It is a highly ambiguous concept that is portrayed in a one dimensional way to suggest it is immoral.
We use force when we chew our food.
We use force to protect our communities.
We use force to protect our personal being.
Force has no necessary moral/immoral position.
In some cultures, castes are almost a physical barrier. Certain members of of society are not permitted to interact with higher status members, and are not permitted to hold certain jobs. That system doesn't exist in America. America does not have a caste system. You can make an argument (unconvincingly) that our economic system is a type of defacto caste system, but that's 1) not the same, and 2) not an overly interesting debate to me because I've had it so many times.
So moving on to what I do find interesting:
The initiation of force is unjustifiable. The only morally acceptable force you will be able to list will be responses to people who unjustifiably initiate aggression. Police do not initiate force, they respond. When police are the ones who initiate force, the public rightly throws a conniption over it. Community-based force is immoral when it is initiated against life, liberty, or property, but never in defense of innocents.
The initiation of "community force" to correct an "immoral reality" (and I'm using quotes on that term because it's highly subjective) is indeed immoral. In every instance, the initiation of force is immoral.
Your example about using force to chew food is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you would even write that. As for your other examples, using force to protect a community is reactionary, not initiation. Force to protect a person is defensive, not initiation. And force by it's nature carries a moral position, you cannot use force without assigning a moral value to it. And most of our laws carry the implicit understanding that using force is only morally acceptable in defense of life, liberty, and property. It is the
initiation of force that is immoral.
