Not at all. It is all quite enjoyable, and you are adding to my enjoyment by taking all this too seriously. That "screed" was rhetorical throughout, but it's intention was nevertheless quite serious. Most men have very little idea what their beliefs really mean.
Take the idea of "rights." What does it mean to have a "right to life"? Does it mean, you have a right to be kept alive at other's expense if you refuse to do what the requirements of your nature demand you do to live. If you refuse to produce, if you are determined to live on the product of other's efforts, does your, "right to life," give you the right to demand that others provide the requirements of your life?
If the word, "rights," has any meaning, here is what it must mean: rights are what you have if you are the only person in the world, or at least, the only person in a geographical area that no one else can get to. You have a right to do, say, or be anything you want, if you can. You do not have a right to life, only a right to do whatever is necessary to stay alive. You do not have a right to food, clothing, or shelter, but you are free to produce as much of these or any other things as you can. You do not have a right to an education, only a right to learn as much as you, by your own effort, are able to learn. You do not have a right to security or safety, only a right to find and employ means to protect yourself from the dangers in this world.
Somehow, most people believe "rights" mean, just because they are born into this world, they automatically deserve to have certain things and to be able to do certain things. This idea is contrary to the nature of the world, the nature of man, and all moral values. The only thing birth gives you, is the ability to learn what you need in this life to live successfully and happily and the ability to do those things you have learned.
The moment you begin to believe you, or anyone else, has a right to anything they have not produced, acquired, or earned by their own effort, you have justified the principle that some people exist to be the slaves and sacrificial animals of others, for whom the product of their efforts must be confiscated to provide what those others have a right to.
The word, "rights," is a bad word. Every liberal, socialist, collectivist, and totaleterian movement in the world is defended with the notion of "rights." The only possible meaning for rights that can be morally useful, is in the negative sense, "you do not have a right to what you have not earned," "you do not have a right to interfere in anyone else's life," "you do not have a right to live at anyone else's expense," " you do not have a right to harm, hurt, or damage anyone else's person or property," etc.
Hank
You leap from the right to life to socialism without stopping and passing go.
You're conflating rights, privileges and handouts and using entirely too many words to do it.