Property rights require someone to enforce them; No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things. Jury's require jurors who very of

Property rights require someone to enforce them; No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things. Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify. The inability to confront your accuser, produce jurors and promptly render a verdict results in the inability to prosecute, not the inability to have your trial heard by jury. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. This someone is the judicial system, which is (likely) the same system conducting the searches. It is again a "safe by default" system. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do. It is true that you never implied that the right to the Internet was absurd. That was a comment on the discussion at large. However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. My argument is that rights are a limit on the actions of others, and paid for by the agressor. When they are paid for by idle bystanders (likely through taxation), they are a form of socialist benefits and not "rights".