First of all, thank you for an informative essay on an important topic. I do hope you enjoy serious debate.

“They limit the extent of freedom, do not prescribe what to do, but indicate what not to do, giving back to the individual the power over his or her own life.”

I don’t see where you have made the case for including in your conclusion the words I have put in bold print. A right, of whatever kind, whatever its source, is indeed a grant to exercise power.

Your conclusion seems to assert a form of mutual respect. Mutual respect does constrain the exercise of rights, but it is not itself a right. It follows from a belief in equality.

That is a point that escaped John Locke, the author of the Modern take on “Natural Rights,” who in his confusion asserted that liberty is the predicate of justice. Yet, even he recognized that unconstrained liberty is antithetical to justice. Whatever constraints might be put on liberty for the sake of justice have to be the actual source of justice.

I contend that “Natural Rights,” as you have (correctly, I think) described them, are a priori. Any assertion of any a priori anything can only be a belief, i.e. not amenable to being validated or invalidated within the context of (perceived) material existence. There is therefore no basis (other than coercion) for anyone to be required to accept any belief.

A requirement of mutual respect (i.e. taking others into account) also follows, I have found, from the observation that human beings have no choice but to effect choices. To respect the capacity of others to choose for themselves, beginning with whether/how/to what extent to be involved in the process whenever any choice is being effected, is to recognize them as fellow human beings within (our commonly perceived) material existence; to act otherwise is to assert by one’s actions some status regarding ‘thee and thou’ that cannot be validated within that existence.

Mutual respect maximizes liberty. Properly understood, liberty is the product of justice, not its predicate, or source, or foundation, etc.

Anyone who accepts the validity of that observation must accept that the ethic of mutual respect in effecting choices must govern one’s interactions with other human beings whenever any choice is being effected. Correcting the erroneous argument for “natural rights” in the above essay, to deny the validity of that observation is to reveal oneself to be a human being. In a society governed by this ethic, anyone who denied the validity of that observation would still be eligible, as a human being, for the protections of the ethic of mutual respect, but would also be subject, as a human being, to the laws of that community.

I understand that this is completely new to you. I would enjoy discussing it with you, but I hope you will take time to let it sink in before reacting to it.