"your word choice in referring to the owners of the means of production as a group of entities, in my view, masks the fact that ownership of the means of production is more fluid. Despite the fact that many wealthy families may hold their wealth, there is an ever present circulation of people in and out of the working class."

5 people own more wealth than the bottom half of the population of the world

Additionally you ignore the fact that the owners of the machines either produced or otherwise expended valuable resources to establish or obtain them. This means that the man who created the machine is rightfully the owner of the machine or that he engaged in a voluntary transaction to exchange his property for resources. Do you fundamentally reject the notions that an individual is entitled to the fruits of his labor and that one is entitled to engage in voluntary transactions? If so then you are embracing a fundamentally coercive economic system

Private vs personal property. They can have all the resources they want, but having resources does not mean they deserve what other people produce.

to attack this statement on its own: 'Do you fundamentally reject the notions that an individual is entitled to the fruits of his labor and that one is entitled to engage in voluntary transactions?"

Wage labor is not volentary, the only choice the workers have is what slave owner to choose.

The fruit of a workers labor is what they produce, not what others produce on something they control through violence.

"Lastly on this topic you present a false dichotomy in place of the spectrum of options available to the working class. you claim that he either comes to an agreement with the owners of the machines or starves, but he has other options. Firstly he could establish his own means of production or otherwise provide a service which other individuals wish to exchange goods for second he could sustain himself through other means such as farming and/or foraging. Assuming he is not a slave there is no factor which forces the individual to work for another man."

Turning a worker into the bourgeoisie is extremely hard, and its economically impossible for the majority of people to do it.

Unless of course you imagine a world before capitalism, where everybody can own their own weaving loom.

And again, the worker would then just be a slave to the open market. Free lance workers actually tend to have it worse because there are no laws protecting how the large corporations they often work for treat them.

"Firstly you claim that the social relations of the worker to the owner can not exist without a monopoly of force (presumably in favor of the owner). This is inaccurate, perhaps you could argue that it is not likely to exist without use of force but to claim that it can not exist is wrong. For example if both the owner and the worker respect property rights as a fundamental moral principle, then there is no need for a monopoly of force. As another example, if we are feeling especially pessimistic on human nature, lets say both the workers and owners posses the ability to attack and defend each other with equal ability then the workers have no reason to attack the owners knowing that it would not be worth the risk. Thus property rights are respected without the need for a monopoly of force. The central point in this is that you can not simply assert that the relationship between workers and owner is only attainable through a monopoly of force and therefore immoral. You must make the argument that it this is the case, which you have not "

I said this was the government.

"For example if both the owner and the worker respect property rights as a fundamental moral principle, then there is no need for a monopoly of force"

if both me and the children in a hospital respected my right to bomb them with white phosphorus on moral principle there is no need for a monopoly of force.

"lets say both the workers and owners posses the ability to attack and defend each other with equal ability then the workers have no reason to attack the owners knowing that it would not be worth the risk."

actually whenever that happens they usually completely destroy them and end up better for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936

revolutionary spain, ussr, china, and rojava are all examples of this. The problem with your statement is that you assume that the ownership is actually needed. Ownership actually only hurts the workers, so it will always need a monopoly of force.

"You state that the workers made and use the means of production, which I think we can again refer to as machines without losing any generality. It then appears that you make the claim that the owner must use violence to claim ownership of the machines. Now if it is the case that the owner just happened to stumble into a factory with workers building machines and called his guards to claim ownership of the machines then yes that would clearly be an inexcusable use of force, but if the owner walked into town with a box of gears and drill bits and entered a voluntary transaction with a group of workers to exchange labor for money wherein it was agreed that the completed machine would remain the property of the owner"

" it was agreed that the completed machine would remain the property of the owner"

I don't give a flying fuck what a contract or agreement says. The workers do it because they need resources to service, and the owners do it because through ownership of the means of production they can control the workers and steal the results of their labor. Private ownership of property does not need to exist, so you can't make any claims about "rights". Rights are a social construct, the only freedom you have is the freedom you take.