"One, simply saying that I'm being hypocritical doesn't hurt my original point or change the facts"
Generally no, but in your case yes. If you believe that there is a right for privacy and that it can be infringed while causing no physical damage than you cannot also claim that physical damage is the only criteria for the definition of Damage or harm. I hope you see the logical fallacy in that.
"When did I say that I was forced to consume it?"
You said "There is little I can do about it if I want to live in this society." And here we come again to the question of your hypocrisy. You dislike capitalistic media yet you cannot bring yourself to ignore it. You say that piracy should be legal because that is what your moral stance says yet you brake your own ethical guidelines by consuming capitalistic media. While this doesn't necessarily mean mean that your claims are wrong, it makes it *much more likely* that you first decided what it is that you want to do and then devised some kind of moral system around it. The fact that there is an inconsistency between what you say and what you do says that in all likelihood your moral system is nothing but a veil to conceal what is in essence a basic egoistic behavior of simply doing whatever you want.
"The key word here is "taking." Absolutely nothing has been taken that they originally had. They've copied data."
You are clinging to a small technicality and conveniently ignoring the whole process of creating and selling a digital product. Damage exists that is not physical.
" If we stay in it, then yes, there will be less art. However, that does not mean that any harm was done, as nothing was actually taken."
So you like product A. However, because you are not willing to pay for it the creator has to find another job and as a result you have no more product A. So in your world having less of the things you like is not considered a worsening of the situation?
"What if everyone exercised their rights as consumers to not buy music any longer (but also didn't pirate it)? Will we have more music or less? Clearly the artist(s) have been robbed of potential profit here!"
Consumers are not under obligation to buy, they are under obligation to pay for the use of the product *if* they decide to buy. You cannot claim your right as a consumer if you are not willing to commit to your obligations.
"Let me illustrate exactly why this argument is foolish (and hope that you'll actually read and understand it)."
It is not my arguments which are foolish, it's your examples. It's like arguing that shooting in the streets is OK because shooting a shooting yard is OK.
" Here: "Physical labor, and your boss agreed to pay you to begin with. Pirates never agreed to anything, and have no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply.""
"Physical labor" - and what do you think does it take to produce a book, movie or game?
"Pirates never agreed to anything" - "Judge, I never agreed not to steal his car!" You don't agree to being under the law. You just are.
"no "social" obligation to pay for media that is in infinite supply." Again, a simplification and clinging to a technicality to justify not paying. Just like claiming that you don't have to pay for a train ticket because the train is no full and it would have cost the train company the same whether you are on it or off.
"By changing to a less capitalistic society. That is the key. Either that or find a new way to make money somehow. Music (concerts and such) and movies (possibly movie theaters) I can understand, but I have no idea how video game developers or writers would make money (besides donations)."
Yet no harm is done in your strange world where having less is better.
"You throw the word "hypocrite" around as if it will change basic logic itself and prove that something was actually taken"
I throw it around because your arguments are pure BS. You are not working from some higher moral ground but a lower one, the same one that is shared with all criminals: let the honest people do the work, we will just take what we want. You sound no less delusional than a thief trying to justify why he *deserves* the car he stole.