I'm not buying it. This is merely an assertion. A right requires a correlated obligation. If you have the "right" not to be assaulted, then I have the correlated obligation not to assault you.
Its not an 'obligation', it's in your rational self interest not to assault me. Lest I assault you, and it gets messy.
But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced.
Nope, it exists because we [rationally] do not want to be assaulted. So we selfishly agree not to assault each other, or others, and codify that agreement into our law. Thus our selfish individual non-assault right exists whether or not it is violated/enforced.
It is enforced either by God, or by a social group. And if the latter it is not really a right, merely a "law", a social agreement. There is nothing inherent about it.
You are simply denying an inherant urge to defend ourselves. We fight to do so, individually, constantly.
So of course we make social agreements to do so.
A right must be enforceable -- either by a group (e.g. a government) or by God. Period.
Dogma. The individual defends himself most of the time.
There is no other source available for the "right" to come from. Only if a right is granted by God can it be considered "inherent" or "inalienable". A right granted by a State is neither inherent nor inalienable. A right that is not enforced, either by God or by a social group, is not a right. It is merely hot air.
The 'hot air' is coming off your pulpit.
Why you fight against the concept of having your own inalienable rights is best left to speculations by professionals.
Tell that to anyone who ever mugged someone else, burned down a house then shot the survivors as they came out, or ran a concentration camp. Apparently your "rational self-interest" was no deterence there.
But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced.
Nope, it exists because we [rationally] do not want to be assaulted. So we selfishly agree not to assault each other, or others, and codify that agreement into our law. Thus our selfish individual non-assault right exists whether or not it is violated/enforced.
And if we do not agree? That is rather the point. You are assuming (rather academically I might add) that everyone, or even most people, are of course "rational". I suggest that your perspective has been shaped by your environment. Go live in Liberia for 6 months in the bush and then come back and tell us about it. Try discussing your "enlightened rational self-interest" to someone who thinks chopping off your arms with a machete is fun and besides, he wants a snack. Have fun trying to discuss your concept of "inalienable" rights (sans God or social group) while they turn your forearms into "meat on the stick".