The problem of social order

I used to think of rights and law as natural. Such as self ownership and property rights. And the laws derived from them. They ARE natural, but not in the same context that philosophers have used the word. They are only natural insofar as the consequences to a society that doesn't abide by them. These consequences can be seen in the problem of social order. All rights are property rights. Self ownership is a consequence of property rights. Many have argued that property rights are consequences of self ownership. I don't think this is true. And at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what comes first as long as the same conclusion is reached, ie, that individuals have these rights. And that self ownership is inalienable. But looking at property rights as the overall context for the ownership of your body, and other scarce rivalrous resources, is a much clearer way of looking at it. And it completely erases the philosophical problems that arise when deducing from a starting point of a right being natural.
Instead of thinking of rights as natural, try thinking about them as purposeful. After all, human action is purposeful. Thinking about rights in this way sheds a clearer, unequivocal, more concise light on where rights origins are.
Crusoe, alone on his island has no use, no purpose for claims of ownership.

The purpose of property rights, and by natural extension, self ownership, is to avoid conflict. In the first stages of social development, do you think fights over stuff came before fights over bodies? Or was it the other way around?
Just something to think about.
Another good reason to view rights as purposeful rather than natural is because the purpose is to avoid conflict. Thus, when a conflict occurs, while abiding by rights that are predicated on the avoidance of conflict, then you know something is wrong. It's in this methodology that rights are NOT derived arbitrarily. And in this way, it can be easily shown that ALL problems of social order can be traced directly back to a misapplication of property rights. Ie, a misapplication of the first user principle, and the right to voluntary exchange.

Rights to the ownership of your body and rights to the ownership of things that you have come to aquire through first use or voluntary exchange, are different precisely because you didn't homestead your body, nor did you come to aquire it through voluntary exchange. This makes ownership rights of your body inalienable. Exclusivity to your body cannot be transferred. But that ownership rights of your body and ownership rights to other scarce rivalrous resources, serve the same purpose. That a line between my use of my body and the use of my rightfully aquired resources, and anyone else's use of my body and my rightfully acquired resources, MUST be drawn. You CANNOT sell yourself into slavery.

But the point here is that looking at rights in this way, illuminates all problems of social order. Give it a try.