Then we're both in big trouble, OWK. You are slicing and dicing language six ways to Sunday, and using words as a screen to conceal what is actually going on in reality. At least, that's what the picture looks like to me.
I simply cannot make out your meaning. It is unintelligible to me. And I can't make my problem any plainer than that.
But I'm just a fallible mortal of uncertain gifts. There's no need for you to pay me any mind.
Shalom.
Pride goeth before a fall.
You'll have to set it aside if you want to continue.
I can make out his meaning because I've spoken with OWK before. However, I think he is having similar trouble seeing your point.
I will try to step into the middle here because it is an interesting discussion.
There are two big issues. The first is that this concept that you have a right to any behvior that does not involve coersion is contested. You believe it to be true, but others do not. In order to impose this belief, you will have to coerce. You may believe it is justified, but those you coerce do not agree. Therefore, is it truly justified? Is it justified if you are in the majority but not if you are in the minority? Or is there an absolute standard to which you can appeal that would make you justified even if you were the only one?
Second, coersion takes on many forms. Suppose someone is looking at my wife, making her uncomfortable, and making both she and I concerned that he may cause her harm. Is that coersion? Am I justified in applying coersion - even physical force - as a response? Does he actually have to do something forceful before I can respond with force?
Real standards of right and wrong, based on a fundamental understanding of the operating principles of human societies, don't yield these kinds of questions. The non-coersion standard does not have the strength to stand up as such a fundamental understanding because of the problems that it creates.
So, OWK is clear - if you start it I am justified if I finish it, but nobody is justified to start it.
Betty Boop is also clear - not everyone agrees with OWK which means he will have to start something. The definitions of who started it and who finished it are often not clear, and it is exactly these unclear circumstances for which law is made.
One final interesting point. Those who do the most worrying about their rights are probably those who are least secure in them. Those who know the source of their rights are very secure, even in a nation like China which will not secure the rights of its citizens. The very wealthy and the very poor don't worry about their money, only those in the middle. It is the same with rights.
If your abiding passion is protecting your rights, maybe they're not inalienable.
Shalom.