It would be nice if comments could get wider on larger monitors...

I think there is a common ground or grand unification between our two perspectives. But first let me attempt to point out the contradictions as I see them.

You claim rights are inalienable which simply means that an individual is unable to give them up. That is very different from saying they cannot be taken away or denied. The poor can be denied help from the rich, and the weak help from the strong. Life can be taken and property stolen. People can be caged.

Clearly what you consider to be "rights" can be denied. Also, you claim we are "given rights by our creator" but where is it written what those rights are? You are merely asserting you have rights. It is like me claiming that I own the moon or you own the sun. Claiming the "right" is different from having it or securing it.

Claiming the right to your body seems reasonable, but others claim they can vaccine you or limit what you consume. These are all just claims, assertions, beliefs which cannot be proven by math or science.

So in light of competing claims who is "right" and who is "wrong"? How are we to decide? Shout louder? Battle to the death? Ask a 3rd party to decide?

Each person is in negotiation with all other people in an effort to resolve conflicting claims on rights. It is only by one person agreeing to acknowledge another person's right that there is any basis to claim there is no dispute.

So the common ground, you claim you have XYZ rights granted to you at birth by a magical unicorn from outer space.

I claim that I want XYZ rights just so that I don't have to fight you, but I reject the notion of magical unicorns from outer space.

I offer to recognize your claim on XYZ rights if and only if you recognize my claim of XYZ rights. You will naturally accept because you also believe this magical unicorn granted me XYZ all ready so it costs you nothing. I agree because I get what I want, my rights recognized.

Does it really matter where the rights "come from" if we agree to recognize them in each other?

So now you and I are left with a hypothetical dispute:

1. you lose your job, house, and wife and are in need of food, shelter, and clean clothes.
2. I have these things which you now claim are your's by right
3. I do not recognize your right to my things

At this point we have two choices, fight or reach a voluntary agreement. Law of the jungle appears.

If you had previously agreed that those things were mine by written contract, then you would be clearly in the wrong in the eyes of everyone when you recant. This would impact your ability to relate with everyone, not just me.

Where things get interesting is whether or not an individual has the right to change his opinion. When you are well off you have no problem recognizing my right to keep my food. When you are starving your opinion has changed. It may be that you lacked foresight when you made the original agreement.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that a starving man has no incentive to agree to die because he previously made an agreement to sell all his food. The economics of the situation have changed, the starving man values his life more than the life of any other man, past commitment, etc. Therefore, he will trade/risk everything else to keep his life, including the risk of death by combat for the chance of a longer life.

So the poor man re-opens negotiations. First he opens with an offer to trade his labor for food at price that is better a life of a thief or combat. If that offer is rejected then he attempts to take what he needs. If that fails then he fights for what he needs even if it kills him. After all, he is dead either way.

The rich man is faced with a choice:

1. risk death in combat
2. risk some wealth that has minimal marginal utility
3. carry the burden of letting another man die

The relative value that each man places on these various factors will determine whether a peaceful agreement can be reached or whether they fight.

We can conclude therefore, that it doesn't matter what rights you claim, all that matters is what rights others recognize whether by trade or by might. If someone disagrees with your claim and you refuse to reach a common agreement then all that you have left to defend your claim is your might.

Therefore your "rights" exist only in your head to give you a justification for the aggression you make against others. If you are "right" and they are "wrong" then they can die and you can sleep at night.