> Augusto Pinochet

Pinochet may have implemented neoliberal economic policy, but he did not support individual rights. The atrocities themselves are evidence of that. Violent suppression of your critics is hardly liberal. Also Chile was a resource economy. None of the ideas I have advanced preclude state ownership of natural resources. They would only preclude state seizure of resources already owned by citizens.

> The US genocided the Native Americans

Right, American liberty did not extend to native populations. Those rights were reserved for white male citizens. As I've stated, I agree that everyone (adult) should have equal rights. I only disagree with watering down what those rights are.

> Consequentialist ethics assesses the goodness of an action based on its consequences

Isn't this precluded on the ability to predict the future? How do you choose a course of action? How do you weigh the consequences? How do you untangle the medical experiments (which have in fact done a lot of good) from broader Nazi policy? Who do you entrust to make these decisions?

> what if you could order a taxi with an app

As I've said, if it were just taxis a la 2000 I'd have bought a car. My not having bought one is a pretty substantial change to my day-to-day life. Same goes for Tesla. Strictly because of their company millions of people drive electric cars that otherwise would not. They get credit for that.

> They have some bad policies? America has some bad policies too.

Again, since the US state has less power the consequences of its poor choices are less impactful. No one was locking sick Americans in cages during COVID. It would not have been possible without facing armed resistance. The US government also does not have the power to limit the birth rate. Such a suggestion would be career-ending for any politician.

In this whole discussion you've avoided the question: In your world of centralized authority targeting utilitarian interventions, who gets to choose the policy? Who gets to wield the power?

> what's your go-to example of the "just fine" society where minorities are butchered for their organs

Again China, where organs are harvested from Uyghur and Falun Gong routinely. Aside the obvious lack of individual rights protecting these people, how do you figure that there it's impossible to construe a policy which violates an individual's rights that may be a net utilitarian benefit?

For your argument to be sound, you need to prove that its impossible to construct such a policy under any circumstances. For my argument to be sound all I need to do is prove one case where extrajudicially murdering someone is a net good.

You've actually already conceded this, when you suggested that killing one unwilling person to save a million is a good trade. From here it's just a matter of price. How many individuals would you murder to save a million? Two? Two hundred? Two hundred thousand? How do you measure the harm that such policies cause? The Nazis very nearly won the war, they were surely a functional society.

> Literally everyone claims to pursue the greater good

No, that's the whole point. I'm not claiming to pursue any greater good, only create an ecosystem where each person can pursue their own good in peace. Thinking you know the greater good is the pinnacle of hubris.

> Oh you want to stop people from getting hurt? You know who else wanted that? Stalin!

No it's "Oh, you think you know what's best for everyone? And you're willing to use force to get there?"

> polluting smog

Again with the natural rights violations.

> There are countless ways that I can push you into making a particular choice without using force.

Aye, but in all of those cases there are ways to opt out. I can refuse to sell you my non-toxic land. I can refuse to take your vaccine. Offering people more choices is never a constraint.

> Then how can you condemn a serial killer?

Based on his actions? I'd never condemn anyone who simply daydreamed of serial killing. Nor would I condemn someone who killed a willing victim. The evil comes from violating consent.

> 1700s was the period where middle-class capital owners were beginning to compete

Or maybe that oppressed people, longing to be free came to a new world unburdened by existing hierarchies, and created a system founded on their equality?

> Your 1700s definition of freedom is a byproduct of capitalism

Capitalism has been practiced since the dawn of agriculture. If you go fishing and trade your fish for cloth you're practicing capitalism. If you're skilled and lucky enough to accumulate wealth, maybe you'll buy a second and a third fishing boat and hire a crew. On the snowball rolls. All of this is possible only when power, however it derives legitimacy, is used to ensure this process can happen peacefully, and restrains itself to a reasonable tax for this service. Such capitalism has occurred since ancient times.