Comment: Your quandary..

(See in situ)

Your quandary..

is that you are attempting to redefine "natural" and then protest about them not being magical and divine.

You said:

"The kind of "rights" Natural Law folks talk (endlessly about), if not protected / guaranteed / revenged by force-agency (gov't: courts or police) then it's ONLY philosophical musings."

The bolded text is the key to resolution. Natural rights have never claimed to be anything other than philosophical and metaphysical musings.

Natural rights are determined by observing entities operating in nature.

Feeding dogs only jelly beans and beating them makes dogs unhappy. Empirically and observationally dogs are much happier if you feed them meat and play with and love them. Dogs have a natural right to be fed proper food and treated in ways that suits their characteristics. The fact that dogs are sometimes abused and mistreated is no proof that there aren't better or worse ways to treat them according to their nature. (note the word "nature")

Humans have a certain "nature" that, through observation of man in society, leads to the conclusion that society and mankind is better off if individuals can speak freely, defend themselves, be secure in their possessions, are not dragged off to prison without due process, etc..

You are overcomplicating and strawmanning natural rights...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~