That, basically, is the question in the article. My contention is that only the right to bargain and to self-regulate, and to engage in mutual violence under some conditions are natural rights.
Well, you do a few interesting things in your article. You show property rights to be a bargain between participants of a certain civilization, less than universal. Our Founders skirted right past that one I guess. You also recognize that it is a "civilization" which will ultimately wage war to maintain its rules, which in turn define the rights of its participants to property, showing it to be something other than an individual right, in the big picture. But that is really a question of means. How does a civilization deliver for its participants the provision of property rights.
I am going to have to read carefully through this article.