There exist people who think abortion is a murderous violation of certain people's human rights. There also exist people who think forbidding abortion is a vio

There exist people who think abortion is a murderous violation of certain people's human rights. There also exist people who think forbidding abortion is a violation of the human rights of the mothers. There exist people who think that taxing them and using the money to pay for things they find abhorrent (e.g. war) is a violation of their fundamental rights. There exist people who think that compulsory education is a violation of children's rights. Should all these people say the following: "These are basic human rights and the party you have chosen to support thinks that they are subject to debate", "If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them", "attempts to deny people fair civil rights ... [are] institutionalized violence"? And then feel justified in, say, campaigning to get anyone who disagrees with them fired? I do agree, by the way, that advocating laws that violate people's rights is not much morally different from doing the violation oneself. As an anarcho-capitalist, I conclude that probably >99% of political discourse consists of people advocating laws that violate people's rights. I sigh, shrug, and try to make a difference in the places where I can.