>Is saying "No" meaning that you need to have a centralized market a.k.a. communism?

Communism does not entail centralised markets, or even markets at all. The lower stages might have one or the other or both. There are also things like market Socialism and mutualism, which both fit into the Communist idea.

>In communism, everyone is born poor!

Saying this is missing a much bigger point, the point that in Communism wealth is irrelevant; the fact that you're saying this shows that you're thinking of Communism within the capitalist model, precisely the one which creates the "rich" and "poor" dichotomy. You must free yourself from this thinking if you are to talk about material conditions under Communism.

>A rich man that needs a security guard incurs an expense that goes to someone that wouldn't have that job otherwise.

So then people need to live off the whims and desires of rich people? If rich people stop liking something, then you're supposed to accept that and starve? I would quicker violate the NAP.

>do you prefer everyone had 2 apples, or everyone had 3 apples and one person had 1 million apples?

This is a false analogy, those million apples have to come from somewhere, and the fact is that they are products of labour. If that one person did indeed grow and cultivate those apples, then that's his personal property to do as he wishes with it. But really, those people who have 3 apples worked for them, and through structural threat of starvation or otherwise, had to hand them over to the feudal lord^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H rich man.

>I personally do not trust governments with my money, so i don't like them deciding what to do or not to do with my own labor.

Why should a worker trust the capitalist with his means of sustenance, literally everything he has? You don't trust the government with money (I don't either), and I don't trust the capitalist with my wage.

>At least, libertarianism is not forcing you to do anything.

Currently due to the free market, many people are forced by extreme pressures, in other parts worse than others, to do things. They must sell their labour power to a capitalist in order to live. Whether it's one capitalist or another is irrelevant, they have to do it. The apt example here is sweatshop workers. That's force, and you've given me no reason to believe it would disappear under propertarianism.

>Libertarianism is be very well against slavery.

As Engels wrote, "The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class."

>i personally think votes should be able to be bought/sold, and can only imagine we think ill of that because of things from the past

We'll think ill of a time when it wasn't just rich people who had their way, deciding how the others live? I don't think I'll think ill of that at all.

>But overall, the free markets is precisely about the rule of law and the absence of violence and coercion.

Absence of coercion? What about being coerced to sell your labour-power for wage, at threat of starvation?

>there are definite externalities to unions and syndicates.

What are these externalities? What's wrong with workers banding together and engaging in collective bargaining for their rights? I'm not arguing for a minimum wage, by the way, I'm arguing for the abolition of wages.