I don't however accept your definition because I simply cannot find it in a dictionary.
But the definition you gave, presumably from a dictionary, was "Concerned with one's own self interest." I only pointed out that you cannot say one is concerned with their own self-interest if they neither attempt to figure out what is in their interest, nor act to consistently maximize whatever they do know to be in their own interest.
How is this an equivocation?
Because a free market isn't free if everyone is not allowed to participate in it freely. More to the point, we have been using "free" in the sense in which it is normally used here in the West, i.e. as free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not infringe on the rights of others. That is, liberty, not anarchy. To talk about people being "free" to own slaves is to introduce another definition of "free" than the one we have both been implicitly using, which is the very meaning of equivocation.
In a free market business owners set their wages as low as possible and since the workers have no alternative they are forced to work under terrible conditions.
Or they can work elsewhere, if necessary in another profession altogether. Or, they can set out to start their own business, by identifying a need or a want that is not currently being met in their area, and then devising a way to fill it. A business staffed almost entirely by formerly homeless people sprang up recently in Washington. Someone was smart enough to realize that, with only limited room available in Congressional meetings, lobbyists would pay good money to have someone stand in line, if necessary days in advance, to secure them a spot. The people in this company earn anywhere from $20-$35/hour. For standing in line. As you said to me later in your post "try being more creative." Why do all of your workers ever have only one skill, and why do they all seem to be unable or unwilling to master any other? Workers have plenty of free resources they can draw on. Libraries alone are a powerful educational resource that would allow any sufficiently ambitious and intelligent worker to educate himself to work a better job than the one he has. Most libraries also offer free internet access, free email accounts are easy to find, so sending out resumes and cover letters, as well as receiving responses, is possible, again without any real starting capital.
As for those who lack the intelligence and/or character necessary to advance their own interests independently, well, I see no reason why those who do should be forced to support them (enslaved to them, in essence). I have no objection, if you believe that such people do have some sort of intrinsic value, to your using your own resources to help them, nor to your encouraging other people to use their resources to help them. Both of these are fully allowed in a capitalist society. I only object to your forcing those who don't agree with you to do so. Stealing to help others is no more just or moral than stealing to benefit one's self.
You say that unearned money has no value and then you immediately say that criminals can get value from stolen money.
Because the money was originally earned, yes. This isn't a contradiction. You merely truncated my sentence to alter its meaning.
This is the second time you have deliberately twisted what I said. I never said anything about a demon. Go back to my original post and look for yourself.
Let's see. You posited a hell, and a temptation -- get whatever I want by condemning an innocent man to an eternity there. I'm sorry, but the sort of entities that go around offering such deals are generally called demons.
Also we are not talking about a real life situation. By the very rules that I set out for this experiment you would not gain anything you did not want
No, it isn't a real life situation. It is a fantasy in which you have to keep making the scenario increasing "creative," i.e "fantastic," in order to make your point. Fine. You win. If you posit a scenario in which it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person, then I agree that in such a scenario it would in fact be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person. Really, that's what you are trying to do, isn't it? It's a circular argument, though, that has no bearing on how we should act in the real world.
Rationally how does it not make sense to sacrifice this one man in order to save the whole world from suffering at the hands of rights abuses? 2 choices: A- you save one man but the world still has widespread injustice. B- you condemn one man and save billions from injustice. So will you save one man or save a billion?
What makes you think that I am morally responsible for the actions of others? I am responsible only for my own actions, and have no right to "sacrifice" an innocent man for any reason. I put the word "sacrifice" in quotes, because I am not really sacrificing anything, any more than a common thief "sacrifices" his victim's rights. He merely violates them. If the man, knowing his death will benefit the world immensely, chooses to sacrifice himself, well, that is his choice, and perhaps it would be a noble one. If I murder him, though, to accomplish my goals, that is not noble. And it doesn't matter what my goals are, whether they involve only my own well-being or that of society as a whole. And this of course is the mind set of the left, the easy willingness to sacrifice, not themselves, but others to accomplish their goals. And in real life, where there is no demon, or whatever you would prefer to call it, to manipulate the world in fantastic ways, it wouldn't work. A world in which people were allowed to "sacrifice" others to their own conception of justice is one in which injustice must be rampant, because such "sacrifices" are always unjust.
And this was the point I was trying to make with my previous discussion of your hypothetical examples. In the real world, all of the things I want cannot be given. They must be earned. In the real world, no one can give me other people's friendship or other people's love. They may be able to give me other people's money, but to the extent that they do so, they devalue what they are giving. And in the real world, you cannot create more justice by acting unjustly. You can of course imagine fantasy worlds where this might be possible, just as you can imagine a fantasy world in which people don't need to work at all because they can conjure whatever they need into existence by magic, but that isn't logical proof of anything.
Making decisions guided by your own emotional whims is not logical at all. It may be logical to avoid emotional pain but the pain it self is not logical or rational. It is completely irrational. But see that's my point. You are now admitting that you do not make decisions based purely on rationality. You do follow your own whims at times which are irrational.
Hmmm . . . where to start on this one? People are emotional beings as well as rational ones. It is therefore irrational to consider what is in our best interests without taking our emotions into account. That doesn't mean that we should make decisions based on emotional whims. Just because I feel angry at the moment doesn't mean I should smash my monitor, for instance. The short-term pleasure I might derive from the violent act would have consequences that would lead to long term unhappiness. But, if I had recently bought a new monitor, and planned to throw this one away anyway, then smashing it might actually be perfectly acceptable, and kinda fun. So, I believe that my self-interest involves maximizing my long term happiness, which requires me to rationally identify what needs and desires need to be met for that to happen, and to figure out, rationally, how best to go about meeting them.
In fact, the goal of seeking self benefit itself is an arbitrary goal.
What do you mean by this? Any goal we set for itself can be viewed as arbitrary. The poor workers you are so concerned about, for instance, seem to have an arbitrary goal of not working in terrible conditions. You seem to have the arbitrary goal of helping them. Both are perfectly fine goals, as far as I am concerned. It's when you decide to pursue those goals by stealing from others that I object.
In any event, apart from the notion that any goal can be viewed as arbitrary, we have clearly evolved to want to survive. What we need to survive is determined by our nature, and so food, shelter, etc. are not arbitrary in any meaningful sense. Likewise, how to best go about getting these things, whether through productive labor, or through plundering the productive labor of others (and really, they have to be obtained ultimately through productive labor, one way or the other) is determined also by our natures, and by the nature of reality.
Try to rationalize why you seek to benefit yourself.
Why? That's sort of obvious. You have essentially asked me to explain why I seek that which is good for me. There is no answer possible there except "because it is good for me." It would make more sense for me to ask you why you seek to benefit others. I am especially interested in why you believe you should do so even if it harms you (in both the short and the long term). Of course, until this point, you haven't really be arguing in favor of that. You have been arguing in favor of "sacrificing" other people to help yet other people. Specifically, you have been arguing in favor of sacrificing the strong and the competent (except for yourself) to help the weak and incompetent. So, here's a hypothetical for you. An angel offers you a choice -- condemn yourself to an eternity of hell, and it will arrange for everyone else to be happy forever. Or, don't condemn yourself, and things stay as they are. Would you really choose the former? And if so, why? I'm guessing you won't find such "sacrifices" so appealing when you are the one being sacrificed.