Agreed. Describe your thought process for deciding whether someone’s natural rights have been violated.
> I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'.
Group A uses the ‘ought to have’ framework to rationalize co-opting the state in their conspiracy to plunder group B.
> Both are invented concepts.
All concepts are invented. I choose to use concepts that most accurately map “non-invented” reality.
> In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.
I agree with this analysis, but it’s not how I arrive at the ethical imperative to protect natural rights.