Well first of all, Rothbard obviously distinguishes between morality and natural rights. He claims his conception is rights is derived logically from fundamentally true premises. He does not claim it to be derived from moral assertions, which he probably understood were subjective.
That is why he feels it is a moral obligation to feed your children, but not a legal obligation, not a right of the child to be fed. Therefore it would be unjust to force parents to feed their children, even though it is the moral thing to do.
So right out of the gate you've misunderstood Murray, who you're supposed to be defending. Or you;re just making up your own ad hoc theory as you go along.
And you have not in any way answered my point.
You say I have universal inalienable right to certain actions. What does that mean? Unless it means that I have a claim to have those rights defended by others, it means absolutely nothing more than that I have the ability to use my own force. I can do that in any case. A right is something I can claim from others to be upheld and respected.
A right that doesn't include the access to an apparatus for its enforcement means nothing. If I have no claim on the enforcement of a right, it is no different than if I didn't have the right in the first place. In your definition, my 'right' seems to consist of FaithKills' personal opinion that I ought to be able do something. What good is that? Why is your personal opinion of any value to me?
If no one but me is required to defend my rights, they have only that extent I can secure by my own might. That is equally true of any action I take, right or wrong. It can only be achieved to the extent of my own power, it has no relation to the concept of rights.
The rest of your incoherent rambling made no actual points I could distinguish, other than to claim I am personally bad and accuse me of terrible things. That is not an argument.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: