Do you deny bringing “fiery vengeance” and shooting into the discussion or are you saying they aren’t forms of force?
“Nobody forced you into anything, because nobody forced you onto my property. “
From a previous post: “My assumption was that I was on your land through no fault of my own, that I was run off the road…”
“permission to get off my land--but I am not obligated to do so. “
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement that I need your permission to get off your land.
“Those "rights" are not legitimate, unless you and I are already bound by prior agreement.”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.
In addition, you’re saying that my claim to explain myself to a judge and jury is not legitimate, which means you claim that my right to a trial by jury is not legitimate. Do you ever read your own stuff?
(Perceptive Lurkers: It was only a nibble.)
Self defense is one thing; initiation of force is another. Way, way back at the beginning I pointed out that you shouldn't confuse defensive and aggressive uses of force, but between then and now you appear to have developed amnesia.
In addition, you’re saying that my claim to explain myself to a judge and jury is not legitimate, which means you claim that my right to a trial by jury is not legitimate. Do you ever read your own stuff?
Of course those things are not legitimate. The only right there is, is the right to have, use and defend your own property. If you don't want to spend all your energy personally patrolling your property, then of course you can contract out your self-defense if you wish; you can also enter into various contracts with others, such as your neighbors and those with whom you do business.
Some of those contracts might stipulate the use of binding arbitration, for example. That's your prerogative. If you make no provision for the settling of disputes, then you'll have to settle on a method that is mutually agreeable with whomever you next find yourself at odds. Since both of you are rational beings, that will likely include some form of negotiation arbitrated by some third party.
That third party will have to be someone you've agreed upon, though. When you speak of a "judge and jury," you're assuming that someone out there has a monopoly on dispute resolution--namely the government--and that everyone must obey the dictates of that government. This monopoly even extends to disputes in which the government is the defendant, of course. How convenient.