now, natural rights: the definition varies, but i can provice two commonly used definitions in order to then give mine. natural rights in libertarianism: natural rights are inherent, self-evident, and derived from self-ownership and reason. they are pre-political and immutable, often defined by life, liberty, and property, with the non-aggression principle protecting individual autonomy from coercion or force. scottish enlightenment perspective: rights are derived from human nature, emphasizing reason and sociability. moral sense theory suggests that rights, including property and liberty, emerge from our innate moral instincts and capacity for empathy, which guide social cooperation and ethical behavior. my notion: rights are minimally assumptive (superlative: self-evident) ethical considerations derived from personhood, defined by the substrate for at least incipient reason and self-awareness. they form a universal (by virtue of reason, unless you think reality is inherently irrational and therefore absurd) moral baseline, but additional moral values may be drawn from broader aspects of human nature.   > how does being capable of arguing a position therefore mean you own yourself being capable of arguing a position means you own yourself because the act of argumentation inherently requires and affirms self-ownership. it's both a practical necessity (you must control your body to argue) and a logical one (denying self-ownership while arguing affirms it). therefore, self-ownership is an undeniable presupposition embedded in the very nature of argumentation, or even earlier, given reason and self-awareness as starting points. now, you could also believe you have no right of controlling your own body and you just do and rejoice in this evil, but what i say is meant for those with the objective elements that enable morality, those that at least accept reason (instead of broken people unable to even conceive of morality).
Peru