No, my objection is that Ron Paul wants to pretend property titles are not acts of aggression backed by the state. I'm no anarchist, but I am a believer in the Enlightenment and the social contract. When a regime of property has grown unbearable to the people, it is the right of the people together to abolish it and free themselves of its burden.
Whereas Ron Paul would say that anyone wishing for even the slightest alteration of existing property arrangements is exercising the "offensive use of force." No, we are simply withdrawing force once exercised because we no longer approve its usage.
You are not entitled to a police force that defends your plantations, factories, mines and, yes, server farms and retail outlets from the angry, starving masses. You receive that defense because you're part of a society that works together and must work for everyone.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is in no way anarchist: without hierarchies.
The idea of the 'social contract' isn't terrible - for any sort of stability, there must be a rough consensus on what constitutes society's Schelling points. The problem comes about when the concept is taken as an immutable condition and used to nebulously justify the specifics of the current system, lulling people into believing in change from within. Any contract needs to have well specified methods of exit.
Would you happen to have an opinion on which of your books I should read first?