I agree with the definition, just pointing out the fallacious reasoning. My worldview doesn't admit of private property as an absolute right, and grants civil gov't the power of taxation within certain limits. All goes back to presuppositions. What you gave are ethical judgments derived from your moral presuppositions. The issue is with what moral standard you resort to when saying this. Some form of moral relativism? Or do you adhere to a normative moral standard that is universally binding?

That is a rather sad argument. If this line of reasoning were true, then what else could one possibly say? 1) Wolverines are mammals with legs. 2) Babies are mammals with legs. ... Babies are wolverines. Sorry, can't dodge presuppositions. How can you make judgments about ethical matters (i.e. theft) without explaining on what basis you would define and understand them? Government should only do X. To do Y is bad. But I don't have to tell you on what basis or on what authority I said this. Wow

The issue of theft as an ethical matter is purely presuppositional. What moral code are you relying upon for such a judgment? What do you presuppose when saying that the State has no right to take money from the citizenry? By what standard? On what authority? What is the extent of your claim? To what extent is it binding? On we go. In any case, making judgments without demonstrating (or even making reference to) your ethical grid by which to evaluate policies and actions is to beg the question.

Goodness. Your hangup on "novel" is beyond absurd. Your original remark was under consideration, and the phrase you used was "no particular view of the market." Big difference, but of little significance at this point. Bahnsen? Nothing like gross equivocation. I use a word, quite appropriately, and you wish to make it a matter of Van Tilianism! haha Economics is based on a number of factors. These include, but aren't limited to, the world, man, knowledge, etc. All presuppositional. 101 stuff.

You provided none. You left off with nothing more than an unargued assumption. You never used the word novel. You simply said you had no particular view. I never asked for evidence for the market. I mentioned that you provided no evidence to prove your assumptions, hence the reason for my saying that it was unargued. I don't deny the existence of something called a market. I merely understand it differently than you. As I have said before, our differences are presuppositional in nature.