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

This argument has been excellent despite its shortness! It seems to me that you are confused about what exactly entails 'natural-rights', and their place in the world - this is what I attempt to get at when I said 'categorical error' earlier. What I am saying is that YES Natural-Rights exist - they exist in the form of self-sovereignty, but they do not, cannot, create for themselves a mechanism for defense against abuse. That is, self-sovereignty does not create the means to defend itself - but this is NOT a 'problem' in the sense you suggest . It seems to me that in your introduction you suggest that because natural-rights are incapable of this form of defense they are useless, valueless or meaningless. Thus the categorical error is that you over-extend the sphere of natural-rights. To claim that Natural-Rights not being able to defend themselves is a problem with the essence of Natural-Rights is equivalent to saying that because I can verbally abuse the Theory of Gravity, it is inherently flawed - after all, Gravity can't Defend itself! You are right in saying that it is TROUBLESOME that Natural-Rights can't in-and-of-themselves be defensible - but this does NOT rob them of value - it simply means that we need to create EXTERNAL means of defense, such as a "social-contract" or Compact, or perhaps additional ethical or moral considerations (wherever they are derived from). In regards to your other attempted rebuttals. You claim that my statement: "If I am obligated to myself then I have a Right to continue my own existence" is somehow illogical - that I failed to provide a logical basis for it. At the point that the statement was made it had already been concluded that OBLIGATION to oneself does indeed exist. Thus it seems to me that your issue is with the step from OBLIGATION to RIGHTS. Rethink what is meant by Rights, what entails a Right? Rights are derived through a number of means - but one of them is through Obligation. Natural-Rights are NOT contingent upon social, legal, or traditional factors - they are brought about through ethics, entitlements, and permissions. That is, since I am self-sovereign (self-obligated), I am also entitled to myself - thus I DO have a Right to my own existence so long as I remain Obligated unto myself (whether or not obligation to oneself is a choice is a much different but equally interesting philosophical debate). Thus it seems you claim that 'One could easily counter' the claim that I have a Right to my own existence is highly fallacious. Furthermore - of your latter discussion about 'freedom from slavery, rape, murder', you are simply reiterating the earlier categorical mistake. Of course natural-rights don't defend you from being raped - they can't!! But rape would still be ethically wrong regardless! This is what leads Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and all other contract theorists to give us the social-contract - as a means of extending Natural-Rights in a fair manner as to become capable of actually defending against the sorts of acts you named earlier. Also; I am not sure what is being said in regards to the non-existence or existence of (X)... Natural-Rights and Natural-Theology are two very different things - not much overlap, if any... Finally at the end of your argument you attack the Inherentness of Rights - claiming it to be a "pleasant-sounding assertion" not based on any evidence. How could one EVER provide evidence for essence? It would be like asking me to show you my Love or my Anger. I can only ever show instances where I acted with Love or Anger - but the essences themselves cannot be shown. Natural-Rights are not little slips of paper each of us carry round with us in our bill-folds or back pockets, they are a feeling, concept, idea, notion, or essence; their existence is shown through philosophical assessment which is what I did in my previously posted argument. And again, you are right that Natural-Rights do not actually free us from the "cruelty of the natural state", but this is yet again your categorical-error. Man needs either to defend his rights for himself through his own will-power and means, or he needs to enter himself into a social agreement - as you say: 'social-contract' (or as I prefer, Compact). In closing your statement: "There is no logical way to demonstrate inherent, natural rights exist" has been shown to be fallacious, misguided, inappropriate. Natural-Rights, being extensions of self-sovereignty and in-and-of-themselves (inherent), clearly exist. It was a pleasure to partake in this debate! Thanx; Remi