it also follows that not one right is more universal than another as you stated in your previous post: property right is more universal than freedom of speech. How can one universal be more universal than another. Illogical.
Wrong. If you are Robinson Crusoe you don't need rights or looking at it from your point of view he has all rights. if you live outside society then where are your rights? would you demand rights? from whom? from God? Rights are individuals rights inside a society. No society no rights. PeriodSpurious argument. You can't make a rightful contract unless you have a right to make a contract. If rights exist they necessarily precede society. I don't believe in god. God and social contract don't exhaust the available options, this is a false dichotomy.
Rights do not precede society our needs precede society. A bill of right is a codification of what we consider the minimum protection as individuals from other individuals and from our rulers.
.You can't make a rightful contract unless you have a right to make a contract
and to have a right to make a contract you need a previous right and so on and so on ...
Ridiculous, unless rights are assumed to be God given.
We simply have a group of people who decide to enter in a social contract and the social contract has some clauses regarding the protection that indivuduals will have upon signing the contract, these protections are called human rights.
What do you mean by saying that they need a 'right'? what do you mean by that, a letter of authorisation by a higher power, what ?
I don't see how property rights can be extended to our own body, we are our own bodies. only rights to life, to freedom of movement, etc are pertinent to our own bodies not 'property rights' I went along with your bizarre extrapolation of property rights into the human body to show how absurd it is.
How ridiculous the statement "I have property rights over my body" sounds.
Kind of crazy although maybe not to an economist.