>how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them?
None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit.
>I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
> and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade.
None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.
None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit.
>I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.