"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,…”
?????????????
Now you're applying your false logic to the act of discussion itself. Words mean what we mean by them; in order to discourse, we must understand the definitions in use. That isn't a political exercise, and it isn't pointful to "vote" on what the words shall mean. It suffices if you know what I mean, and vice versa--and I've explained what I mean, more than once. You just keep forgetting.
You don't need logic to "conclude" an observation.
This is getting increasingly ridiculous. You need logic to conclude a conclusion. You claimed that my logic implied a certain conclusion, which it didn't. I'd be interested in seeing the chain of reasoning by which you arrived at that nonsensical "observation" of yours.
"Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract."
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
?????????????
I sympathize with your confusion. Fact is, you're trying to foist a "contract" on me against my will, that includes things like taxes, judges, juries, third-party regulation of my personal property, police enforcing the bogus contract, and what have you. I foist nothing whatsoever on anyone. I merely point out that nobody has a right to impose their will on another's person or property. You are free to try and prove otherwise, but so far you haven't tried.
Everything else I have said proceeds logically from the observation that nobody has the right to push anyone else around.