"Self defense..."
I take it you are admitting you erred when you said “Force is not involved.” Good on you.
"Of course those things are not legitimate."
So it's Ok for all of us productive cooperative people to join together and get rid of a predator/parasite like yourself. That's the consequence of your words. We're not interested in any of your unilateral ravings. We're going to get together and come to an agreement by our standards, not yours.
By the way, those contracts you wrote about: I might say I've already got something like that and it says I have a right (a contractual right if you will) to a trial by jury. I point out that, if I correctly recall the circusmstances laid out as a theoretical situation, you wouldn't be around to dispute that right if I had to exercise it.
There you go again. In discourse of this type, "force" is shorthand for "initiation of force", and is never intended to include self-defense. I already explained that to you, but you apparently forgot.
So it's Ok for all of us productive cooperative people to join together and get rid of a predator/parasite like yourself. That's the consequence of your words.
I'd be fascinated to see the "logic" whereby you conclude that. If I initiate non-defensive use of force against your person or property, then you (and/or your agents) can take steps to defend you. If I mind my own business, neither you nor anyone else has any right to interfere with me in any way whatsoever.
By the way, those contracts you wrote about: I might say I've already got something like that and it says I have a right (a contractual right if you will) to a trial by jury.
Namely, a "social contract." You do like to beg the question, that's for sure. Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract.