[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The same way that a 'right to property' is derived. You say 'right to property', I say (for example) 'right to liberty', or 'right of basic sustenance', or 'right to a ninth grade education'. Why is one automatically more important and encompassing a wider scope than the other?


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that rights are objectively determined, its that rights have to be consistant among all members of society. If I dont have a right to point guns at the government and take their money, they dont have the right to point guns at me and take my money. Property rights arent you get unfettered access to my property but I dont get unfettered access to yours.

The only reason this type of logical inconsistancies are allowed is because the majority of people dont even realise their is an inconsistancy in their beliefs. The irrationality is perpetuated and future generations grow up thinking the status quo is completely legitamate.