Property rights are the only rights that exist. The "right" to KBA proceeds from the fact that you can't stop the owner of the ore from selling it to someone who makes steel, and you can't stop him from selling it to someone who makes guns, and you can't stop him from selling the guns to whomever he pleases. In turn, you can't stop the owner of the gun from using it in any way he pleases, except in the case that he uses it to violate property rights.
You can make a rule for your property, that nobody with a firearm is permitted on your land as a guest. That's your prerogative, because it's your land.
Everything proceeds quite neatly from one and only one assumption: the right to property is absolute.
(Note: one's self is one's property, so self-defense is a special case of defense of property. In particular, libertarians usually say that the only right is the right "not to be aggressed against"; that's equivalent to "property rights" as I've formulated them here.)
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect and its ridiculous on its face.
"The "right" to KBA proceeds from the fact that you can't stop the owner of the ore from selling it to someone who makes steel, and you can't stop him from selling it to someone who makes guns, and you can't stop him from selling the guns to whomever he pleases."
The right to KBA proceeds from the ability to take an object or objects (rock, stick, combination of both, etc) and turn same into personnel property that can be used as an arm (club, spear, etc).
The right to KBA is not dependent on a separate someone selling his personnel property to a second separate someone who turns it into something else and sells that to a third separate someone who turns it into yet something else and then sells that to anyone.
“Everything proceeds quite neatly from one and only one assumption: …”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to the effect everything proceeds from your one assumption, neatly or not.
“the right to property is absolute. “
Which is not to say that property rights are absolute. The right to property is different than the rights you claim as a property owner and I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me.
"(Note: one's self is one's property, so self-defense is a special case of defense of property. In particular, libertarians usually say that the only right is the right "not to be aggressed against"; that's equivalent to "property rights" as I've formulated them here.)"
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.
One of the characteristics of property is ownership and ownership can change. When ownership of personnel property changes, it leaves you. When ownership of real property changes, you leave it. You can’t leave yourself and yourself can’t leave you. If you could give up ownership of yourself, someone else would own you. Normal people believe that when one person owns another, one is a slave and the other a slaver. Which would you be?