There certainly exists property that changed hands through violence.
However all property was first owned legitimately. Someone had to make it or homestead it before someone else could steal it. This is an analytical truth.
You're the one ignoring the fundamental truth about feudalism. That it is dependent on a unilateral claim on the land and persons in a geographical area. Some of those people may have made past illegitimate claims.
However you yourself assert that past illegitimate claims don't justify a perpetual and genetic claim for repatriation.
In any case Feudalism wasn't about reparations. They just made a claim. Thieves didn't use to try to hard to make their theft seem legitimate. Feudalism is always violent usurpation of property rights.
As I replied to one of you BILL3's, I don't always agree with Walter or Rothbard. I guess another one of you read that one.
I'm a methodological skeptic. I reject belief as a useful form of cognition, as my handle implies. In fact I think it's dangerous to humanity. However among religions, statism is the most feral and dangerous. Unlike for Christianity or Islam, there aren't any theologians for statism that try to bring logical order to statist thought. There's just people like you who use the full arsenal of rhetorical and logical fallacy, and when that inevitably fails you resort to invective.
Regardless I can lay out where Walter and Rothbard are arguably wrong, though I wouldn't prefer to do that to Walter in a forum he might read without asking for his participation.
The problem is you can't, your critiques of them are incoherent, and you're attacking their strength. You are not equipped for this.
But you do make an excellent foil for us to make our case:)