unless you think there is property that passed down in an unbroken chain of legal transfer since it was first homesteaded, then yes, at one point in history, most or all of the property owned today was transferred via violence. it does not invalidate the title just because violence was involved in its past. periods of legal transfer are interspersed with periods of political turmoil that involve extra legal, non legal transfer based on the outcome of a war or force in general.
for example, all of the real estate and property in the western hemisphere, the title goes back to the point where the land was taken from, or purchased from the natives. in those few cases of genuinely legit purchases, just go back a few decades or centuries further, sure enough you'd find a violent transfer between native tribes themselves.
in the old world, i don't think you'd find any piece of property that does not go back to violence within the past 1,000 years.
this is all besides the point, which you ignored, about feudalism. once the property is established via whatever method, absolute property rights make all the behavior that took place under the feudal order ethical. anyone on your property , however it was established 100s of years ago, is trespassing and is subject to the will of the property owner.
to regulate the owner's behavior, you would need to a) violate his property rights, b) form a bigger group of mercenaries ("protection agency") than he has, or use some collectivist government to punish his behavior.
have you considered the possibility that you're participating in a cult with your irrational response to those who disagree with rothbard, block, etc? it displays all the markers of cult behavior.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent th