I dont have the time but if i were to write on a topic i would have briefly touched on natural law which states that a right is an action that does not cause harm to another sentient being. I believe that if we were to follow the principle of do no harm and if we respected the principle of autonomy then morally speaking we would not be far off the righteous path. By simply practicing the golden rule in morality, that is, stated negatively 'dont do to others what you would not want others do to you', we would change this world over night. According to natural law there is an objective difference between right action and wrong action. The former is based in the truth and does not cause harm to another sentient creature. We have an infinite number of rights that is actions we can morally and legitimately do in this world, so it is a lot more efficient if we define our rights apophatically. We cannot trespass, coerce, steal, rape, assault, or murder. That's it. So as you can see its much easier to define our rights by outlining actions that we can not/should not do as opposed to what we can do. In the end every immoral act is a form of theft because they involve taking something from another.