Thank you for this detailed response. This was exactly the type of feed back I was looking for. You end with saying "I'm suspect that you find what I say to be foreign and somewhat confusing." You're correct, but perhaps not for the reasons you may suspect. You make perfect scene, though I do think that you either misunderstood what I was saying, or more likely, I did a poor job of communicating my ideas. So I am confused in that I don't see how your critique relates to what I'm saying.

People influence others by there merely being exposed to their presence. You seem to be interested in avoiding a particular type of influence...

This was a key point was making. Daily interactions, weather intentional or not, influence those we come in contact with. These interactions are not oppressive. Coercive influence is separate from that. So I think we actually agree here, but I may be wrong. I also gave several examples of non-coercive influence, so I'm not sure if you mean I'm intentionally leaving out something that you think I should have addressed. This is a bit confusing.

From here your critique skews greatly from my intent.

you are making an additional claim that this is the way the universe should be.

I don't think I doing that at all. I am making the claim that this is how life perpetuates its self. From my understanding this is basic biology, and is easily testable and repeated. Even the most self centered person, can not persist on a genetic level, without a healthy population of their species. If my children can not reproduce, and like wise their children, then my genetic identity is terminated. My statement is entirely limited to Earth bound carbon based life, and has no baring on the governing forces of the universe, out side of our own planet. Which as far as we know is the only example. I do believe what I'm claiming is objective, because the laws of Earths biology exist, and are true, regardless of what I believe. My opinion is irrelevant. If I die tonight, a healthy gene pool that has free access to resources is essential to maintain genetic integrity of not only the population, but the individual. Of course conflict exists in non human species, but we are unique in how far we are able to take this, and the less cooperation that exists with in a species, the more violent and limited that species is.

I argue a negative case: There is a lack of objective evidence to indicate that one person is morally subordinate to the other in such a way that one person has a legitimate basis for forcing the other person what to do against that person's will. To appreciate that claim, one has to first understand and accept some principle of science. Not easy.

I have re-read my post and do not understand what I said that lead you to believe this was my conclusion.

As for the biological advantage of getting along... I would like to live in a place where people get along without forcing peaceful people to do things against their will. I avoid making the positive claim that I have discovered a fact about the universe that says that humans are compelled to ensure some kind of population growth or health or other such thing (I prefer to have a lot fewer than a billion people on the planet).

Again, I can not see how you gathered this is what I am trying to say. ( with the exception of health)I thought I was clear that my view is the opposite of what you are claiming it is. Again, this is just as likely my own lack or clarity than it is your miss interpretation.

I argue that it is just your subjective preference to prefer one goal for the human race versus another...
(there is a lack of evidence to indicate that the common good can be objectively measured against the loss of liberty, so there is a lack of evidence to support the claim that utility or common good is a legitimate basis for justifying the state).

My only preference is that my children have some one to breed with. In order for that to happen your children need to be healthy and have life free of coercion. I'll make the claim that my views are in no way subjective, and can be easily measured in the natural world ( Earth only), through observation. I can not find anything in my statements that justifies 'the state", and in all honesty what I'm saying is actually completely selfish and not inherently meant for the common good, though the outcome benefits the common good. It is simply that as an individual who values my own genetic identity, I can not perpetuate my identity unless my community is healthy and thriving, If my children have no one to have sex with, and our environment is trashed, then all other accomplishments are void. This is not a subjective observation. A human population dominated by violent coercion, is not conducive to genetic replication, and thus species integrity, in the long run. I can not conjecture as to what that time scale may be.

That's all I got for now. I look for forward to continuing this conversation if you have the time.