your first two sentences blatantly contradict one another.
people naturally pillaged the fruits of each others labor regularly prior to the institution of government. nature did not seem to mind.
when you say someone has a right to do something you are making a moral assertion. i can say "people have a right to feed their children, even if they have to steal" or "people have a right to an equal share of the earths fruits" - these are just assertions.
you're just making assertions and since you have no basis for them you attribute them to nature, who is unable to defend herself from your false attributions.
any rights people have are simply claims they asserted, and backed up by establishing institutions capable of enforcing or defending those claims. the right to self defense extends beyond the individual's right; he has the right to join others in mutual defense.
in fact he must, since others can form groups for mutual offense. mutual defense against those who won't abide by the law is called government, law, justice, etc. now, if this group holds an area of land over which it exercises jurisdiction, it can make everyone there abide by the rules and contribute to the funding of their enforcement.
the example i introduced below, and others have reiterated, of an analogy to a homeowners cooperative or association, is clear illustration of the dynamic in play on a small voluntary scale. even if it begins with just voluntary individuals, the nature of reality is that the voluntary signatories are replaced by their children on the territory, and they are born under submission to the rules. they never agreed; but the group still has the right to enforce its customary rules and dues on all on the territory.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: