Simply put, You exist. You exist as a individual, capable of
sustaining your own life. The requirements for you life to continue
can be conceptualized into 'rights' that you possess as a living,
thinking being. You have the right to continue in your life, since
you are capable of sustaining it barring intervention by others. This
right is secured by the rational capacity of the individual, linked to
the corporeal existence/free will of the individual, which manifests
as actions in 'self defense'.
Your 'right to life' leads to corollary rights. Existence is
measured in time, and time (spent wisely) yields game/crops/shelter or
'property'. You have a right to (justly acquired) property because
your continued existence (your 'right to life') depends on being able
to dispose of your property (the manifestation of productive life) as
you see fit. Following this type of chain, you can produce several
'rights' that a person should reasonably expect to be 'allowed' to
exercise. Liberty is the corollary right that 'allowing' falls
under, since there would be no question of the free exercise of your
rights if you did not have others with equal rights to contend with.
Since we all equally exist, we should all have 'equal' rights. The
rights are inseparable because they stem from what we are. A prisoner
has rights. Not because we 'allow' them; but because his free will
enables them. The fact that there are prison breaks is merely proof
that the prisoners maintain their rights *in spite of* the full force
of gov't and the people being intent on denying them the exercise of
same. The unjustified killing of a person is therefore a destruction
of a value equal to your own, and should be dealt with harshly by
those who value the rights they possess.
That's about as far as I've taken it, I think. Much more could be
I'm glad I took the time to write this down again.
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place,
but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing
at the tempting moment."