Comment: I can literally, word for word rebut your statement with your

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Let me emphasize: It seems to (see in situ)

I can literally, word for word rebut your statement with your

own words, and simply make the case that, THAT is exactly what YOU were doing; as you said, in your own words, it's just your "perspective," ie. your opinion (which you are not denying you're expressing here):

It seems to me as though you are claiming that your views somehow epitomize some kind of eternal law of humanity. This is in no way the case. Your views, which I sympathize with, are your own ideas and they are only as good as they are convincing--what you say exists is non existent for much of the rest of humanity. There are alternative realities; in fact, no two people can possibly share the same reality. In other words, there are infinite possibilities for truth.

Again, "It SEEMS to me as though" is also an emotive expression of your own perspective, but more particularly in this case, a presumptive expression of your own feelings, which has no bearing with me, one way or another.

Can you read minds?

Your attempt is made worse by proceeding with a slightly declaratory sentence that alludes authoritatively something I've never stated or claimed. Or, perhaps you assume I'll be pushed to defend it, on your terms?

So, we're devolving into accusing me of the non-existent indefendibles? Tsk tsk tsk: not with this lad.

"...are your own ideas and they are only as good as they are convincing"

Indeed, but seeing as I'm only talking to you, on this matter, and you haven't convinced me of your case, even though, seemingly we share similar philosophic grounds, I'd say you've made my point.

That said, likewise, given such, if I've failed to convince you, even though, "rights," "natural rights," "negative/positive rights" while disputed endlessly, still have commonly understood definitions particularly among libertarian scholars, leaves us with nowhere to go. No?

Be that as it may, let's get back to the issue at hand: not, you reading my mind, or you alluding me stating the obvious is akin to me dictatorially laying down the Hammurabic Code, shall we? lol .O)

We have languages with definitions for words, for a reason. At no point do I arrogantly assume that describing known definitions are "my definitions" or are "claiming that your views somehow epitomize some kind of eternal law of humanity"; very flowery way of saying 'get over yourself' indeed. LOL. It's mildly 'personal' but I take no such ill-presumed, whether intentional or not, offense.

To wit, I'd say, stop digging, if you can't defend an already existent definition of a word pertaining to a known topic.

You're still debating contracts vs. rights.

Hypothetical grandiose dramatic literary allusions and gestures can be hilarious, and pointedly so, if applicable, and targeted at proper deserving party. But, this is simply a case of you disagreeing with me on what definitions of known words and concepts are, particularly ones that are well known among libertarians as well.

No? If so, I'd say let sleeping dogs lie.

Cheers.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul