I think the overall difference in our thinking is based on a few base principles: - You believe that rights exist outside the state (i.e. there are property ri

I think the overall difference in our thinking is based on a few base principles: - You believe that rights exist outside the state (i.e. there are property rights without a state), and I think they only meaningfully exist within a state, however primitive (tribal chief + social norms, etc.). - You believe that natural law (however divined) is a fully correct basis for statutory law, whereas I see statutory as something that should reference a natural human tendency, but not be beholden to it. Am I understanding your view correctly? If so, we can go point by point, but until then we're arguing over the falling action and not the premise.