Virtue Ethics is Unethical

Whether an action is good or not depends on the standard of morality one is using. I don't see how that precludes the ability to quantify the sucess fo one's pursuits based on that standard or how doing so is committing a fallacy.

How do you quantify the standard then.

Which standard? If we take the life of man qua man (is that Xomniverses?), for instance, it's quite obvious which actions are likely to be detrimental to one's life and which aren't. The sliding scale might be open to subjective interpretation, but the principle isn't.

Could I ask why you're a market anarchist?

Actually it is not only open to interpretation it is open to question. Neo-Aristotelian ethics has some massive holes in it. One of which is indicative of the last point you're trying to make it cant make blanket prescriptions. Or it cant support belief in market anarchism on ethical basis since if I dropped all of my doubts about it, it would still only pertain to the individual and nothing more.

As for myself I'm an MA because of the economics and efficiency.

What does "because of the economics" mean? You mean because the free market works better or achieves some other goal better than command economics? It doesn't matter either way; these presuppose ethical viewpoints.

Can we not say: "If prosperity is a goal, then it would be right to advocate the free market?" Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your position, but you seem to be denying the validity of this argument. In which case, you cannot logically be in favour of, or oppose any political system.

and made comments against it. I don't go to other peoples vids and make comments against them. I just ignore them or make a video response. Though I wouldn't have a problem doing either. I merely state my opinion on the matter and if people want to agree or disagree its fine. You initiated this argument is the main point here so its you who has the onus of this potential "ought" claim on your shoulders, not mine. I don't accept that definition either way, though.

Huh? How is a video response supposed to be better than a criticism in comments? You started criticizing XOmni, so I'd say the presumption of an ought is on you. If you make a video, presumably it is with the intention of communicating your views. If you are not interested in other people adopting your views, why bother to make an argument at all? If you were merely expressing yourself, you'd just say "yeah" or "boo" and be done with it. That's not what you did though. You tried to give reasons.

Read my post again for one I said I would be against doing neither. I also said I don't accept your definition of "oughts," but if I did this ought claim would pertain to you since you initiated the conversation with me. There is no ought necessary you either believe what I say or don't its implicit in dialogue that the other person can always disagree short of force. I'm making no ought claim by merely presenting my views and the facts as I see them.

I like how you selectively choose which point to tackle and you didn't even do a good job with the one point. Might want to actually read what I say next time.

I have read your posts and answered relevant points. You have yet to answer my main objection.

If you do not assume that others should share your views, then why did you include arguments in your video?