I claim to have an answer which is rationally sustainable and objective.
And I seek others who believe they can define the concept in a rationally sustainable, and objective fashion, so as to be able to test my assertions against alternate assertions.
But who defines what is "rationally sustainable" and what is "objective"?
LOL! Never mind. Don't bother answering, at least not for my benefit. I've made my point, to my own satisfaction if to no one else's. Now I can stop.
Those lacking such faculties (children, the mentally ill, the profoundly retarded, the vegetative, the unborn, etc..) must have their rights administered for them by proxy steward (generally a parent or guardian) until such time, (if ever) as the capacity is either developed or regained.
Each individual adult human being (which meets the aforementioned criteria) acts in accordance with his own values, as he defines them. Inasmuch as each may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another.
The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”. Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, or even by baser pursuits of pleasure and gratification, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one’s own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, or even to drink beer and watch football because it pleases them to do so.
In order to pursue the advancement of their values (whatever they may be), individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.
The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the free will of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. In a political system which values liberty, initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are therefore impermissible inasmuch as they act to infringe man’s pursuit of his happiness as he defines it.
ONLY in a political system in which each abstains from initiated force and fraud, is each man otherwise free to act in accordance with his will.