Morality (or ethics) is not just subjective opinion.  It is something that can be reasoned about with logic.  It is something that mankind can reason about and discover.

Mankind can work out consistent principles and conclude that violating the rights to life, liberty, and property is immoral.

OK, let's take those reasons separately:
1. You've been taught that it is wrong.
2. You don't want to be a slave yourself.
3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights.

OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave?

No, it is quite different.  In one case, the gun is holstered, the owner is smiling, and he says the gun would only come out if you initiated force.  In the other, the gun is being used to enslave.

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

It's just that it's not worth putting the time into elaborating if there is not a critical mass in this community that believes it is desirable to have the supply adjust to stabilize prices. Someone saying, "Elaborate...but it doesn't matter even if that were possible," without being challenged by anyone else is not encouraging.

No.  You are not being forced to behave in a certain way.  You are being told that you must NOT behave in certain ways, and that if you do it will not be tolerated.

There is a major difference between "forced to do something" and "forced NOT to do something."

You can do anything you want unless you violate someone else's right to life, liberty, or property.  This principle is very consistent.

You can do anything you want to yourself.  You can not do anything you want to other people.  That is why there is a major difference between force that is used to compel others to do something, and force that is used to prohibit you from doing something to other people.

Look now, you can't have it both ways. Either you still own it, and taking it back is moral, or I own it now, and taking it back is theft.

So which is it?

I think the crux of this is that he, in his subjective estimation, believes that the NAP violates itself based upon each person's subjective definition of what aggression is, rather than based upon how the NAP itself defines aggression. We know absolutely how the NAP defines aggression, even if he may define it differently in his subjective view. Therefore we can say that his subjective view is objectively wrong, because words have meaning and the NAP defines its own terms. Or at least we've all come together to agree subjectively that words have certain standardized meanings, and that is the measure by which we interpret words; specifically, the words of the NAP whereby aggression is defined absolutely. He's welcome to interpret them differently if he'd like, but he'll find that he is no longer able to communicate efficiently with us.

In a phrase: We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Now the fun part is determining just how consistent a subjectivist he really is. Because if he's really consistent, the most he can say is that he thinks we're probably wrong; saying we're definitely wrong would be an objective statement, implying that we have the ability to discern the nature of reality.

I assume you mean "take it back."

But I own it now. You can't do that.

I see. So if I come in and break or steal all the things in your house, I've taken ownership of your entire house, and there's nothing you can do?

Criminals must have an easy time of it in Denmark.

I see SolidCoin had a similar idea for stable prices: http://solidcoin.info/economy.html

But I'm picturing only a minor tweak to Bitcoin, with potentially the same pricing effect, so the security and decentralized features of this coin would be the same as Bitcoin.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Boy, you are sticking hard to that moral subjectivity. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

You objectively own yourself. I cannot make you do anything without you deciding to do it. Even if I point a gun at you, and force you to do it, it's still you deciding to do it. You've just decided that doing as I say is preferable to being shot. I can't make you do anything with my gun. All I can do is shoot you.

You would resist a legitimately elected government that claimed it owns you entirely? That implies that you know the truth. The government does not own you at all. You own yourself.

What would the best forum be to discuss whether my detailed plan would work?

it isn't that bad of an idea. btc was tied to electricity costs a while back, remember?

Perhaps. But if you go about life striking first, sooner or later, you're going to meet someone who will strike you down first. Not a good long-term survival strategy, whereas NAP is an excellent long-term strategy.

Now, you avoided my question, earlier. Perhaps because I phrased it incorrectly. Let us say, instead, that a government was elected that states that it owns you entirely. Would that make it true?

What if the value of 1 coin were pegged to the real cost of computing a certain number of hashes?

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.