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.
"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"
There you go again assuming some agreement where there is none.
"I'd be fascinated to see the "logic" whereby you conclude that."
You don't need logic to "conclude" an observation. It is observable that people people join together and get rid of a predator/parasite. If nothing else we have prisons. There have been shunnings, lynch mobs, banishments, regulators, tar and featherings, running out of town on a rail, "whupping his butt because his butt needed whupping" and their equivilents throughout history.
"Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract."
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
?????????????