> What an infantile way of thinking.

This is ad hominem. It is not an infantile way of thinking, but it is a distraction from the topic of conversation. It is also a strawman. What I said was that multiple sides can be morally correct, and you recharacterized that into a completely different statement before insulting what you just said. The worst criticism most people would have about my opinion is that they disagree with the idea that murdering a human could ever be morally acceptable, and many of the remainder would disagree that there could be more than one morally correct participant in a war.

> Sounds like you believe in a utopian ideal of a classless society.

I do not. I believe that it is necessary to have a wealthy upper class to advance technology and industrial development at a reasonable rate. I believe it is no longer necessary to have an impoverished underclass, as it is now possible to replace its former role in civilization with robotic labor. As such, social policies enacted to ensure that the underclass would continue to exist are no longer useful, and ought to be repealed, with different policies enacted. UBI is a good start on this, but I don't believe any of the currently popular conceptions for how it would work are economically viable.

I will not continue unless you can accurately paraphrase my position from what I have written. I can only argue as myself, and I won't argue as the opponent you have created in your mind that you wish for me to be.