Defeding Inalienable Rights: a Crisis of Philosophy (We are unable to defend 'natural rights')

You have a done a fine job demonstrating that Man has self sovereignty. However, this falls short. Because I am sovereign over myself simply means that I am wholly responsible for myself. In the 'natural state', this means that it falls entirely to me to fend for myself and defend my life and property. In a society (derived from 'social contract') this self-responsibility forms the cornerstone of our legal system- that you are responsible for your own actions. It also forms the basis for capitalism, that you are responsible for your own wellbeing (as opposed to socialism/communism which stresses more strongly the caring for of the less able by the State). Con:: 'If I am obligated to myself then I have a Right to continue my own existence' How so? You have not demonstrated any logical basis for this leap. One can easily counter, without need for any such leap to conclusion, that this means no other has such an obligation to you. From this, we can see that, since I have no obligation to you (in the 'natural state'), there is no reason for me o not act against you in order to further my own wellbeing in some way. Indeed, theft, rape, and even murder in moist cases, all serve the self. If the only only obligation is to the self, then not only can we not reasonably condemn these actions (morally)- it seems we must encourage and embrace them, to the extent that they help to better serve self-interest and satisfy the self-obligation you demonstrated earlier. If one does not wish to be raped or killed, under your model, they have no right to not be- they merely have a self-obligation to prevent it. In order to demonstrate the existence of natural 'rights' to condition (freedom from slavery, rape, murder, etc.) and not simply to thought/experience (those things which are inherently interior, such as as a right to believe X), you must demonstrate that the the Self has such an obligation to the >Other<. Otherwise, we are left where reason had led us- to the disconcerting conclusion that the only inherent rights Man can be demonstrated to have are to Think and to Struggle. As for your preference of 'compact' in place of 'contract' for this conversation, I have no objection. I simply use the term because, upon finding that others had constructed similar (and more complete) models long before my arrival, I adopted their terminology in order to better communicate my thoughts to others more familiar with the matter. Con suggests that I am in error for assuming that X is not real unless it can be demonstrated that X is in fact real- or, more accurately, that the model that X is real is the best available model, given the available information. I disagree- this is the same reasoning that leads us to conclude there is horn on our foreheads and that any given deity does not exist- be it flying mass of pasta, an invisible pink unicorn, a triune-man, or a 8-armed woman. Such reasoning is acceptable in other fields of logic, reason, and philosophy- I see no reason we should not accept the same standard here. Indeed, should we face a State or society which does not recognize such rights. Indeed, we do now- society now seeks to put a time constraint ones' right to exist, stating that you have no such right until your slaughter creates an unsightly mess. What if such a State arises again that recognized no such rights because they cannot be reasoned to exist. If history repeats itself once more, are we without any valid argument? Are we to rely on appeals to emotion and consequence to make our case? That is unacceptable for a reasonable philosophy. If we have only social contract to protect us, then what reason is there to demand the contract recognize rights that cannot be shown? Con then goes on to make a weak yet pleasant-sounding assertion that 'Rights are always "inherent"' without any further evidence to support his yet-to-be-made case. Alas, you have merely strengthened the argument for the cruelty of the natural state and the need for social contract- your model makes us wholly dependent on positive law to put in place positive rights, for you show no reasonable path the conclusion that natural rights exist at all. As we prepare to conclude this final round of this public discussion, perhaps you will stumble upon such an argument as to demonstrate the existence of such a thing- else we must abandon much of conservative and humanitarian tough, for we face the crumbling of the very foundation upon so much good is built