[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For starters, the right to food and water is easily demonstrable to be inseparable from the right to life

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the "right to life?" Where does it come from? (This is not the same as self-ownership.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It arises from the same nebulous area as self-ownership does. But that's got little to do with your argument, because...

[ QUOTE ]
I am asking you to substantiate your assertions. Right to health care, right to sustenance, etc., are observably not supported by a very large number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

...who cares? What does the number of people that do or do not believe in a given right have to do with whether the belief system the right is based upon is logically consistent?

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot compare even a right to basic sustenance as axiomatic versus self-ownership as axiomatic. There is no comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, who cares if the first tenet is or is not axiomatic? It's still an entirely consistent belief. In fact, I happen to think your core tenet, self-ownership, is absolutely worthless without some kind of societal framework to base it on (namely, if you are born into a dirt-poor family with no education system available, does you owning your labor *mean* anything? Can a Russian serf just after emancipation be said to be enjoying the fruits of his labor in any meaningful sense of the word?)...but I don't go around calling your beliefs illogical. They plainly do make sense given the core principles you operate under. I mean, I think the entire belief system is a giant externality hamster wheel and pretty much as bad as a utopian thought experiment has ever gotten, but it's not "illogical".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as it requires (vast amounts of!) outside enforcement to make it work, it's a positive right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then who is obligated to do what? (Hint: No one is obligated to do anything.) What do you mean by "outside?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Unencumbered by any societal obligations whatsoever, it should be self-evident that the right to property is defined by the number of guns on your side vs. the number of guns on the other guy's. Unlike self-ownership, which you can kinda get away with almost anywhere with the right skin color and possibly language, property requires vast amount of outside help to maintain, whether through government/private security/whatever. It's a negative right until it meets the real world, where various 20'th century governments were the first to actually provide it to *everyone*.