But that’s not a proof because it is not always true. If 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5, then you can’t say that 2+2 = 4. As I said, logic isn’t easy until you can train your mind to reject contradictions. It takes time.
You can keep saying that my claims you have made logical errors are absurd, but they aren’t. Your appeal to history, and your now selective proofs are basic logical fallacies.
Premise: Voluntary is a concept defined as the consent of all parties.
Premise: Free markets are defined as a process of voluntary exchange.
Premise: Human beings demand disputes to be resolved using force if necessary, without consent.
Conclusion: A voluntary free market can not satisfy the demands of human beings who demand disputes be resolved using force, without consent.
lol, now you are cracking me up. first you assert my claim is false because you do not demand force. how can you make that claim if it might not always be true.
so let me get this straight. my premise is a so called assertion because you say you do not demand force, but there is no guarantee you will not demand force in the future…
but if someone does demand force it does not prove human beings demand force because they might not demand force in the future?
And I am the one who needs a logic class?
That’s better. It’s still a little loose, because when you say “human beings” it’s going to be assumed you mean all. You clarify that in the conclusion though when you say “who demand” indicating there is a distinction amongst human beings.
I don’t think anyone here will argue with that conclusion. Some humans want to use force without consent, and that is not market compatible behavior.
I didn’t assert anything. I proved your claim was wrong.
It doesn’t matter if I demand it in the future. I don’t demand it now. Therefor, the statement doesn’t apply as a blanket on all humans. And that’s consistent with Ancap, because we aren’t trying to promote a Utopia.
Don’t understand this. You’re back to getting the discussion turned inside out. Stick to simple logical progressions.
Absolutely. What you’ve posted here is a bit terrifying to be honest. It shouldn’t be this hard to understand how to eliminate contradictions.
Without even going into it, if the top 1% have 1/3 of the money, that implies that the bottom 99% have 2/3 of the money. 2/3 > 1/3, so by your argument the courts should always find against the rich people. 
Honestly, if no will was written, all property should go directly to the government. If you don’t believe in a direct government as I’m sure many here don’t. (Minarchist doesn’t mean anarchist, but some might want a “private government”.) Then I would imagine the most egalitarian and liberal form of wealth allocation would be roullete. And I mean that completely seriously. Since juries, governments, and people are bias, and obviously the man who preceeded to die didn’t bother to write out a will, gambling who gets what seems like the only fair option. In the most objective way it can be defined as “fair”. IE: “No human meddling”.
“Honestly, if no will was written, all property should go directly to the government.”\
Good joke there buddy…
“Then I would imagine the most egalitarian and liberal form of wealth allocation would be roullete.”
you are at the wrong forum to be bringing up egalitarianism…
I hope you’re joking.
According to Rothbards ethics, property goes to first one to homestead it. In practice things would go as is written in laws of property owner/guy who died.