'Every mention of the other guy, nor even every insult, is an "ad hominem argument".'
" I've been privileged to do some very interesting research."
All privately funded I trust.
As to the rest of your post, it doesn't matter.
What matters as far as I am concerned is::
You refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to the implicit contract to which you would hold me.
You deny you should be subject to violence for failing to meet obligations to which you say you did not commit but threaten me with violence for failing to meet an obligation to which I say I did not commit.
In relation to the above, most of what you've posted (to me at least) in this thread looks like strawman and red herring. (By the way, there's little challenge when it's so easy to use your own words against your words nor when I can just keep repeating a statement you don't or can't comprehend. You don't or can't see the paradox.)
You say "I claim that apart from self-defense, which is itself an unalterable force of nature, there are no rules at all" which makes it everyman for himself where you are concerned. I don't see how you can survive like that but it's your problem not mine.
We have no common frame of reference.
Self-ownership is not the result of a contract. It is a fundamental part of being human. If you ultimately fail to grasp that, then no worries: eventually you will be eliminated in an act of self-defense. It will both be a rightful death, and an instance of natural selection at work.