-17 votes

The Nutty Professor (Walter Blockhead), Arbitrary Rights, and NAP-headed hoes

Someone call a lawyer, a team of talmudic scholars, a psychoanalyst and a priest. The "rights theorists" are at it again, and no word or meaning is safe. And call the sheriff. Language is wanted as an accessory in the murder of logic.


Block has determined through his incisive reasoning that privacy, outside of that afforded by property, is no right, according to "Libertarian theory." He does not elaborate further.

Presumably rights emerge into nature merely in act of acquiring property. Prior to that their existence is hazy. Like the Big Bang, we don't know how they emerged, but if we start there with a "given" we can spin out a web of supposedly logical conclusions.

Just don't pay any attention to all the shoddy, haphazard assumptions and arbitrary definitions, decisions and determinations these "theorists" rely on to keep the rickety structure glued together.

According to Blockhead, privacy is a right only to the extent that it stems from property. Presumably then, if property fails to provide privacy in the future, then privacy will cease to exist, rightfully and justly.

Consider. If technology develops to a point where anyone can eavesdrop and view anyone else through their walls, from great distance, then per Block, no law could justly be enforced against such intrusion as it is not aggression. Privacy is not a right. It is merely an incidental consequence to the right of property (which is inherent in nature like the laws of physics according to "libertarian theorists").

We are probably not far from the point where personally owned drones can be flown above anyone else's airspace (umm, how much of the air above your property up to the atmosphere is "yours"?). So then the right to privacy thereby vanishes as well? After all, there is no physical aggression involved, so no legal restriction on such spying/intrusion would be justified. That would be aggression against individuals who are not harming anyone.

Of course, we can re-define x-ray or otherwise intrusive cameras as extensions of our bodies, or define them as weapons, I suppose. Pretty arbitrary, but possible. It would be a harder case to make for super-targeted listening devices. I suppose competing soundproofing technology for those who can afford it would be the sole means of defense, since the eavesdropper cannot rightfully be punished legally.

Someone spying into the window of a dressing minor would be morally and legally guilt-free, according to Block and the NAP crowd. No violation of the NAP, no infringement upon anyone's rights (privacy is not a right, remember), therefore no moral or ethical, or legal, violation.

As for airspace over one's property, it has never been either theorized or adjudicated as far as i know.

Perhaps some anarcho-geniuses will explain to us that A PRIORI AXIOMS PROVE that all the airspace over our property, extending into the atmosphere, and in fact infinitely into space time, is the the rightful property of the "homesteader," and that airlines should pay passage fees to anyone who's airspace they fly (trespass) over. Very practical and reasonable, these anarcho-comedians. Thanks for clearing up the real tough issues!

Another example of how this rights business is arbitrary (and hilarious) and involves definitions and decisions that are completely subjective and made up...

Suppose someone follows you around calling your mother a wh0re. Can you slap them in the mouth? Aggression or not? Who's the aggressor?

Don't cheat, no peaking at prior legal precedent churned out by those dens of violence and oppression, known as law courts. This one is tough, it needs to go to direct to the supreme council of anarchocap theorists.

It is arbitrary to say whether it is "aggression" or not, since no blow is struck. Whether this as$hole trails you by 5 feet or shadows your person (ghosts you, in technical parlance) or makes threatening body gestures, makes you uncomfortable, offends you, insults you, or if some bit of his stray spittle is caught by the wind and strikes your person, whether that is aggression and whether at that point you can shoot him or merely punch him in the nose is ALL arbitrary.


Important questions like these can't be left to anyone. Walter Block and other experts on the NAP should be consulted by the hundred thousand drive through, quick-serve, and dine-in arbitration agencies that would flourish under true freedom. (lol)

They need not even ALL necessarily have their own Blackwater agencies enforcing their rulings. Since no right to privacy exists, they can just use the best in modern spying and identification, tracking and biotechnology to observe, report, track, rate and judge the serfs, er, citizens of this new techno-feudalism, and its architecture of enforcing the NAP, without force.

Moving onto more pressing concerns.

In this shining sea of lagoons and lilly pads of freedom, some deserts and dark lagoons will undoubtedly exist. Some might surround completely others. In fact, all will be surrounded by a number of others, by definition.

Let a thousand nations bloom. Also a thousand conflicts, in need of resolution. Let a thousand communities have insufficient access to transportation, waterways, defensible borders. Let many of them be surrounded by hostile communities.

I suppose transportation agencies would also flourish, offering to transport those unfortunate enough to be in between or surrounded by privately owned anarchommunities which don't let others pass. Suppose some open city is surrounded on four sides by a44holes. These rescue air transport agencies would swoop in and fly the stranded sovereign individuals in the dry patch over into a more hospitable community.

This is where we really need the wisdom of the anarcho-geniuses to come in.

Exactly how far into the sky does my property extend? This is no easy question. Only the iron-clad, impenetrable, cold fusion reactors of Logic that are the minds of these theorists can determine such an important question. It carries with it the Fate of all future private drone and air travel Law.

Disregard all previous precedent, and coercive law -- that is all a product of tyranny, force and the bad old days of arbitrary violence.

Libertarian theory needs to define it all anew for us from really smart geniuses like Block, so that private competing arbitration agencies and drive-through courts/judges with protection agency enforcers will determine IMPORTANT questions.

The burning question of how much of the airspace above one's acre lot of property is also one's property, in which one can rightfully launch the nuclear warheads to which all free individuals are entitled, as owner of said private property, with unlimited property rights, needs a logical answer. We are waiting, Block.

People of brain.

Please take the nutty Professor above referenced and his dream team of NAPhead geniuses lightly, like I do. For the sake of your own mental well being. They are anarcho-comedians, good enough for amusement. Little else.

The law is what we decide it should be, and can get enough people to agree to enforce. Because it is REASONABLE for human well being.

Our rights are what we assert them to be, what we decide to demand others respect, and what we can mutually uphold because REASONABLE people agree and throw in with us.

Chuck these nutbags and their jackas$sery from serious conversation, please o pretty please?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I hate rights. they dont exist except in a social context.

For that you need social agreement.

The real question is what is optimum to use violence for. It just so happens that it is optimum to respect property, and defend property. Optimum economically, physically, mentally, and socio-spiritually.


Walter Block is right

Not only do you not have a right to privacy, you don't have a right to free speech.

You have a right to free speech on or with your property.

You have a right to exclude people from your property so you can have privacy.

You do not have the right to force someone else to fund your positive right to speech or privacy.

Just as your right to self defense doesn't mean I have to buy you a gun.

So too your right to free speech doesn't mean I have to buy you a printing press.

Similarly, your right to privacy doesn't mean I have to buy you a firewall, a privacy fence, dark car window tinting, and blackout shades.

Now the NSA does NOT have the right to force you to pay for them to force providers to have instant access to all of your data.

This is a subtle and advanced nuance of liberty which I know you have no hope of comprehending.

But some other reader will.

freedom of speech = trespass

you don't have a right to free speech

A true libertarian knows that there are no positive rights, only negative rights exist.

Freedom of speech is a positive right which doesn't exist.

Freedom from trespass does exist.


Flawless analysis

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

FK, I fully comprehend the

FK, I fully comprehend the argument.

Rights derive from the axiom of self ownership. Property acquired through voluntary exchange, or 'homesteaded,' extends from that first axiomatic right. All other rights extend from the property acquired in those two ways.

As a corollary, a 'crime' or 'violation' is only that which interferes in another person's free exercise of control over their justly acquired property, as defined above. No force is justified that is not used to prevent the violation of those property based rights.

Therefore, if someone snaps a shot of a nude 8 yr old in their own home and sells it to perverts online, punishing them would be unjust.

Physically preventing someone from torturing an animal to death on their property would likewise be unjust.

If someone came onto one's rightfully owned property, and the owner then seized this person, arbitrarily sentenced them to life imprisonment in a private dungeon, this would be fully justified, and no force used against said person on their property would be just.

Likewise, if one lived on a lot surrounded by 4 stretches of private property, and they refused passage, that would be just. The sorry sob stuck in the middle has no right to trespass or use force., even if it means he dies.

Your philosophy has been tried before. It is feudalism.

I hear ya

You don't like liberty - okay I get it. Your posts and comments leave an impression that your blood pressure may be getting very high, dangerously high.

Relax Bill. No need to be so stressed.


Liberty = Responsibility

heh, nah i just think we have

heh, nah i just think we have a fundamentally dif understanding of what liberty is.

and in the words of dr Phil, thats ok!

but thnx dr Freud, u r wise. like a little buddah

In every scenario you come up

In every scenario you come up with, you have it backward. The reality is that we currently have well argued law addressing all of these sick, twisted, and bad behavior scenarios you've drawn, without relying on arguments of rights to privacy. Through the ages the term "privacy" has been insurmountably ambiguous and hence legally undefinable for all practical purposes. The further reality is that should we succeed at making right to privacy a legal construct, the only impact it would have would be to open up a vast new avenue for people who engage in bad behavior to argue in defense of their bad behavior. So I find it ironic that you disagree with Professor Blockhead on this particular issue of [imaginary] rights.


Lets not deemphasize the importance of trial by jury of peers. Life IS ambiguous, and we can't adjudicate every single scenario before it happens. We can only guide future behavior so much, and ultimately [thank god] we wait until things happen, and if somebody has a problem with something, it's their responsibility to speak out, perhaps accuse somebody of something, we evaluate it and pass judgment.

Oh dang, visitors just arrived, gotta go... :D

i wouldn't de-emphasize such

i wouldn't de-emphasize such importance. i would emphasize it, and point out that it falls entirely outside the possibility of just action in rothbard, block, et al theory. welcome to the dark side.

i don't discriminate, his

i don't discriminate, his views and the tradition he represents is retarded on all fronts.

refer to www.dailypaul.com/292653/more-ethical-absurdity-of-rothbardi...

learn to discriminate

1. Your link has nothing to do with Walter Block.

2. Your link has nothing to do with right to privacy.

3. Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.

you're a dick

all your scenarios are a total violation of the YAD principal. if any of those things happened the free market would weed your genes out of existence. who the hell in their right mind comes up with all these sick depraved scenarios. stop masturbating to saw sequels and get a life.

An analysis of an article criticizing the Non Aggression Principle.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

lol. human history is FULL

lol. human history is FULL from beginning to end with exactly such phenomena, from prehistory to the soviet union, to post soviet russian oligarchs looting the country thru privatization, the gigantic sex slave ring, nukes up for sale. slavery still going on in much of the world.... just a few miles south of US border private cartels run the show and behave as humans usually do when no restraints are applied... your conception of human nature is utopian. the market is not magic, and even if it was, a lawless anarchy won't behave like a market based on a legal order. you're a fool.


will allow a fully working model of a voluntaryist Anarcho-capitalist society to come to fruition in the next 2-3 decades. facial recognition tech along with predictive analytics and market regulated rating systems (think ebay feedback score or Angies list) will allow us to have instant personal accountability in our daily interactions not afforded to us since ancient tribal times. people like you who don't deem it immoral to snap a shot of a nude 8 yr old or torture an animal to death will be granted no quarter and your genes will be weeded out of society.
the ultimate goal is a voluntaryist Anarcho-capitalist society based around the NAP and peaceful voluntary interactions. to insure a secure orderly transition the first goal should be a minarchist form of government as we wait for the technological and spiritual gap to be filled.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

i can get down with

i cen git down wit that dat scifi shyt.

then you just have to worry about the some 200 armed, tax funded states, using same and better tech, that will continue to have you outgunned, outnumbered, and out tech'd.

and their complete control over the means of exchange upon which 8 or 9 billion people will depend for their daily braed.

you'd prob have to get rid of em all at one stroke, like the way Trotsky wanted - international revolution! permanent revolution! socialism everywhere!

stalin, that suave beast, was like, AWWW hell NOO, communism in one country, nugga. so Trotsky got Snowden'd.. anyway

for the ANCAPS, it won't even be an option. all states gotta go at once, can't have a state around when alls i gots is dis measly sub-par blackwater wanna be agency, staffed by a bunch of fsckin pansies who read Lysander Spooner and talk about NAP. WTF. permanent revoluton!~

and nuclear warheads stock gotta be privatized, auctioned off like the way everything was auctioned post Gorbachov soviet collapse.... parcel dem badboys out to yer protection agencies when you've brought down all the states of the world w/ the POWER of, boundless LOV3.

hearts will crumble. walls will tumble. ...kumbayaaa....

its... beautiful. like a dream. Utopia! its heeeeeeree.

make a good sci fi paperback.

Technology will fix it, like

Technology will fix it, like the computer was supposed to fix Communist Russia ;)

Ventura 2012

after a month of debate i've

after a month of debate i've realized i am dealing with a new iteration of the cult of the perfectability of man or human society. whether it was the rationalists that created the Reng of terror, or the modern "New atheist" movement that blames every evil of human nature on "organized religion," or the socialists who blame man's lack of perfect happiness and gregarious bliss on "private property," or out present opponents who shift the role of villain to the bogeyman "the State," all share the same belief. Man has been chained from expressing his true nature of love, peace and mutual adulation by some nefarious institution that has forced him to behave otherwise than as he naturally is.

i think it was Eric Vogelin who derived this mentality as being the secularization of the Christian hope for paraside. moved from the after life to the actual Earth. that is the goal of all the utopian secular creeds, per Vogelin, to

Immanentize the eschaton

to immanentize the eschaton means trying to bring about the eschaton (the final, heaven-like stage of history) in the immanent world. It has been used by conservative critics as a pejorative reference to certain utopian projects, such as socialism, communism, and transhumanism. - wiki

the Heaven of the dead christian religion and its god, transmuted to the still living Earth and its unimpressive Lord - Man.

Right, for you 'freedom' is making me buy you stuff

at gunpoint.

And you shouldn't use words you don't understand. Our philosophy rejects feudalism as collectivism, and as justifying theft and murder. Your philosophy is completely compatible with feudalism.

Dr Block is extreme with his 'flagpole' property rights example. I've had arguments with him about this. He gets very animated, hehe. He is a super nice and polite guy, though you might not get that from his writing. But the disagreement stems from his not being convinced about what I think to be the true nature of rights, but I won't go into that here.

But he's correct about the topic you raised.

Your 'right' to privacy doesn't mean I have to buy you an opaque fence.

Your 'right' to free speech doesn't mean I have to buy you a megaphone.

Your 'right' to self defense doesn't mean I have to buy you a gun.

You should take my earlier advice. Stop giving us easy opportunities to show how ludicrous statism is.

I see that you failed to

I see that you failed to address any of my points.

And you can call feudalism collectivism, but it is the unlimited right of property by its owner that produced that historical system. You have to respect the outcome, whether you like it or not.

My property, my right to do whatever I want on it. Including kill or capture anyone who trespasses. You might not like it, but it is the logical consequence of your premises.

It would be just according to the Blockhead view.

As long as my protection agency or armed thugs can enforce it, it goes. To stop me you would require a government come and violate my property rights to prevent it.

That is the ultimate logical conclusion of your starting point.

You're beyond

You're beyond confused.

Feudalism was the seizure of land owned by residents by kings and granted to lords. They not only took the land, they then insisted the peasants couldn't run away. That's a system based on violation of property rights and violation of liberty. The exact opposite of your assertion. And it is certainly also collectivism. Kings and nobility have privileges qualitatively different from others.

Stop being confused. If you want to argue the flagpole example fine. But that was not your original topic and that was not what I was arguing for.

I'm saying you do not have the right to make anyone pay to protect your privacy fence, your typewriter, or your glock. That's socialism. You want to socialize this cost on your neighbor. You have rights but they are not to make anyone else pay in your pursuance of them.

Walter would call you a pinko, and he's right. Why so socialist?

You're mistaken. In the

You're mistaken. In the anarchy or vacuum that followed the retreat of Roman control, order was established by the strongest establishing control of lands via hiring protection agencies (mercenaries).
Violence is how most property was originally established, as Mises even had no problem acknowledging.

After that initial establishment of property, every succeeding owner was not morally liable for that initial violence, any more than you and me are liable for the fact that the property we own was taken by violence in the past.

On their own property, the feudal lords and their protection agencies had full rights to act as they chose toward anyone tresspassing on their property. The right to expel, capture, enslave, or kill.

According to the theorty that all rights come from property, this is the logical conclusion.

I have x property. You come onto it. I can do whatever I want to on my own property, you are tresspassing.

Anarchy is that moment of disorder that precedes feudalism. Feudalism is a form of order out of chaos in the wake of anarchy. It is based on the unlimited right of disposal of one's own property, and anyone who happens to be on it.

It was Kings who broke down this order and tried to suppress this unlimited feudal right, often in the interests of the common people against the propertied nobility. The Church played a role in limiting these abuses. Limits were set by law and custom, as society evolved toward more central states, eventually toward constitutional monarchies and republics.

The emergence of the mobile capital of the bourgeois class, and eventually of firearms and printing helped end this order of things.

Power relations changed.

Your ethics are feudalistic ethics. Violence on your own property is just. Property is the only right, and the property owner has unlimited rights on his property. No one can stop you if your force is superior.

To punish people for acting in such a way on their own property, you would need to a) violate their property rights b) have a superior armed force, i.e., a government.

You need to read up on the

You need to read up on the dark and middle ages. You have a lot of misconceptions.

You really need to understand what states are. States are just the marauders that moved in. Warlords need something to steal. No funding, no warlords. There has to be enough capital that there is a 'profit' to be made by subjugating a people.

Marauding works ok, but it is self limiting. Even if you don't kill everyone you have to leave enough for them to rebuild. If you leave too much they might be able to defend themselves. All in all it's risky.

However once the prey has enough capital that there is enough surplus to make it more profitable for the predators to oppress than do productive enterprise, then the predators can move in permanently.

States. Kings. Lords.

So no, no lords had original property rights. Free people did and must always pre-exist the state, and those people had claim. Certainly when the predators moved in they made a claim. But the claim is invalid.

And you can stop with the imputing of Walter's trope to absolute property rights on me. I already told you I don't agree with that. Walter believes in rights as a priori things. I see rights as resultant from our nature which is always evolving.

We can logically define their parameters but we haven't the capacity to understand them completely because they are changing continually. That doesn't mean we should not try to come as close as we can, and we a simple understanding of natural rights gets us well over 90% of the way there.

all property came from

all property came from violence originally. do you realize that europe was taken away from neanderthals? america from amerindians?

violence in the past does not invalidate the property's future owners, who did not engage in the violence.

once property relations had been established out of the anarchy of the end of roman rule, those proeprty rights became the basis for legal title.

those property owners thence had the right to dispose of their property however they wanted, as per Blockhead/ancap theory.

you have an obnoxious habit of telling people to read up on things. i have read plenty.

you are unable to address my points. you are not capable of engaging in the kind of logical surgery of principles and definitions that would allow you to draw precise understanding from a melee of words and concepts.

just continue to believe "mises was a statist" and utopia will result from the elimination of all laws. you can't harm anyone with such delusions, at least!

Don't be silly.

Of course all property does not come from violence. Unless you think violence is done to unowned property before it was homesteaded. Maybe violence was done to trees or the deer that lived there or whatnot. Idk do you think animals have property rights?

I do agree that sins of the father and corruption of blood are invalid principles. If you don't reclaim your property while you are alive you have no more claim. It may not be your fault that you failed to do so. But once no one alive is a direct perpetrator or direct victim the matter must rest. This is not because the current situation is made just by the years. It is because after enough time, the 'solution' is even less just.

And you seem to have a mononmania about Rome. Rome was just another empire which we fail to learn anything from. Property rights didn't 'arise' when it fell. Well we don't learn the right lesson anyway. Rome 'learned' from Greece and the UK 'learned' from Rome and we 'learned' from the UK. It will end the same.

And legal title has nothing to do with who owns something. Emperors, Kings, Lords, et al always grant themselves title to land. The US granted itself title to Indian territories. This doesn't mean that had they been able to at the time, that they would not have been justified in wiping out the invaders. They certainly would have.

unless you think there is

unless you think there is property that passed down in an unbroken chain of legal transfer since it was first homesteaded, then yes, at one point in history, most or all of the property owned today was transferred via violence. it does not invalidate the title just because violence was involved in its past. periods of legal transfer are interspersed with periods of political turmoil that involve extra legal, non legal transfer based on the outcome of a war or force in general.

for example, all of the real estate and property in the western hemisphere, the title goes back to the point where the land was taken from, or purchased from the natives. in those few cases of genuinely legit purchases, just go back a few decades or centuries further, sure enough you'd find a violent transfer between native tribes themselves.

in the old world, i don't think you'd find any piece of property that does not go back to violence within the past 1,000 years.

this is all besides the point, which you ignored, about feudalism. once the property is established via whatever method, absolute property rights make all the behavior that took place under the feudal order ethical. anyone on your property , however it was established 100s of years ago, is trespassing and is subject to the will of the property owner.

to regulate the owner's behavior, you would need to a) violate his property rights, b) form a bigger group of mercenaries ("protection agency") than he has, or use some collectivist government to punish his behavior.

have you considered the possibility that you're participating in a cult with your irrational response to those who disagree with rothbard, block, etc? it displays all the markers of cult behavior.

There certainly exists

There certainly exists property that changed hands through violence.

However all property was first owned legitimately. Someone had to make it or homestead it before someone else could steal it. This is an analytical truth.

You're the one ignoring the fundamental truth about feudalism. That it is dependent on a unilateral claim on the land and persons in a geographical area. Some of those people may have made past illegitimate claims.

However you yourself assert that past illegitimate claims don't justify a perpetual and genetic claim for repatriation.

In any case Feudalism wasn't about reparations. They just made a claim. Thieves didn't use to try to hard to make their theft seem legitimate. Feudalism is always violent usurpation of property rights.

As I replied to one of you BILL3's, I don't always agree with Walter or Rothbard. I guess another one of you read that one.

I'm a methodological skeptic. I reject belief as a useful form of cognition, as my handle implies. In fact I think it's dangerous to humanity. However among religions, statism is the most feral and dangerous. Unlike for Christianity or Islam, there aren't any theologians for statism that try to bring logical order to statist thought. There's just people like you who use the full arsenal of rhetorical and logical fallacy, and when that inevitably fails you resort to invective.

Regardless I can lay out where Walter and Rothbard are arguably wrong, though I wouldn't prefer to do that to Walter in a forum he might read without asking for his participation.

The problem is you can't, your critiques of them are incoherent, and you're attacking their strength. You are not equipped for this.

But you do make an excellent foil for us to make our case:)

BILLMAHER3 is making his

BILLMAHER3 is making his straw man dance to the tune of "If I Only Had a Brain."

Under real market conditions--that is, if government was just another service--Block may be an adviser to someone in the business of government, but the actual rules people used would emerge from practical considerations and be shaped according to exactly what people would want.

By using Block, or any theory or theorist, to discount the idea of market forces taking over state functions, you create a straw man.

The defining feature of markets is constant adjustment to practical reality, i.e., available resources, newest technology, newest information, averages as far as customer preferences. In a real free market, practical considerations--how one can most efficiently use resources to attract the most customers--trump egghead theories every time. To pretend otherwise is to lie.

It's only under a state, Bill, that nebulous theories are the basis of universal law (see Keynesianism), because the people who run the state aren't accountable to their "customers."

As much as I hate to agree

As much as I hate to agree with a thinker who actually believes that - through some uncorrectable flaw in our God given or evolutionarily produced human nature - mankind is damned to eternally live under the control of the strongest thugs, I have to agree with you on your main point in this posting.

We can talk about unalienable rights all night long but the truth of the matter is that those freedoms which we are allowed to practice are only those that the thugs in control allow us to practice. (We can disobey the thugs, of course, but if we are caught we pay the consequences of their choosing.)

Similarly, we can talk about what the Constitution says all day, but the sad reality is that the Constitution means nothing more or less than what nine robed, government appointed judges say it means.

Where I divert in agreement with you, however, is that unlike you I have no problem with anyone who, in the furtherance of liberty, chooses to use the "rights" argument to convince others to join us. The argument HAS been productive in the past with many, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that gets folks moving in the right direction is okay with me.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I may be able to help with this

Your rights are not what 1, 9, 100, or 435 members of a club say they are.

The practical minded may think, 'well right or wrong, that's just the way it works, I get, or don't get, what they say'.

But that is due to a misunderstanding of the nature of rights and specifically what a right is. We all agree you have a right to life or self defense. We all agree rights are unalienable. If you are struck by lightning were your rights violated? Are your rights violated if someone doesn't buy you a gun to protect you? Or are your rights violated if the police don't get to your house in time?

That seems absurd but this is the logical consequent of thinking rights are rights to things. When something results in absurdities we should back up.

If we all have rights, and they are unalienable, then we can rule out a lot of things people think are rights. It also lends us a clue to what they are.

Skipping a lot of steps.. rights are the moral authority for action. Rights are about morality. Rights are the moral authority for action in pursuit of a set of goals, which pursuit does not automatically create a contradiction or conflict with someone else pursuing the same goal for themselves.

IE your right to act in self defense does not automatically and necessarily come into conflict with someone else's right to self defense. However any supposed 'right' to murder does necessarily create conflict.

Rights aren't the sum of morality. However rights are necessary for morality. If you start from the assumption that there are no rights then you not only might, you must end up with an immoral system that boils down to nihilism.

You cannot build a moral system that is predicated on systemic violation of rights.