Comment: I am not talking about everything in life.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not everything in life is a (see in situ)

I am not talking about everything in life.

I am specifically and precisely addressing the notion of all men and women are equal before the law which appears in every constitution and which I suspect is something you support or advocate?

I hear the minarchist variety throw around the phrase "rule of law" all the time. If there is law in which men and women can not be equal before how can it justly coerce or compel?

You argue men and women can be equal before the law in a perfect minarchist utopia where law is just when We determine the duties and obligations of people. How can that be true when there exists a radical and fundamental difference between men and women in nature which makes it impossible for men and women to be equal before law with regards to "everything in life."

Then you argue Rothbard errors asserting no one has a right to force someone else to perform a positive action. Rothbard would argue positive obligations are determined by individual consent but you would argue positive obligations are determined by whatever We decide they are which can then be coerced.

The entire minarchist worldview then becomes based upon a majorities just authority to define positive obligations for everyone because of some alleged duty of care determined by political majorities with the only bitch being whether that political majority manifests in constitutional or legislative form. The very notion that some people have any just authority to determine and coerce positive obligations upon others without regard to individual consent is the essence of unjust.