Hey people, there are no "natural rights". There aren't any in nature. The lion kills when he needs to eat. Certain species eat their young. If they don't it is because of instinct and behavior that is genetically set for the perpetuation of the individual or the species, not because of respect for the other.If they are not God given, then rights are a construct of society; those change over time. Our ancestors would have been horrified by abortion. We are horrified by their toleration of slavery.
So does the lion have a natural right to eat? Or, is that merely a societal construct?In state of nature with no competition for resources what are those things that limit your liberty (i.e. rights) to do what you want? I'll start you out -1) Ability to outrun the lion.2) Parents aren't cannibals
Eating isn't a natural right given to the lion. It is something the lion claims for itself through force. In nature you start with no rights and then can claim the rights you want for yourself so long as you can forcefully stop them from being infringed upon.
"Natural rights" are the rights one claims for itself in a state of nature where there is limited competition for resources.
So everything's dead except the unicorns?
Western Political Theory since the 16th century give or take is about how human's behave when competition for these resources makes the natural state no longer one of freedoms as all we can do is protect ourselves and our stuff. It is about what freedoms (i.e. right) we give up in order to have a "fair" arbiter protecting our claim to our share of these resources. (As well, of course as to continue the 2000 year debate as to what form that arbiter should take.)The point of the assertion in the Declaration of Independence is not that these rights exists (or are God given) but our founding fathers are asserting that these rights were neither surrendered, nor could they ever be surrendered for such "protection" from the King.
They key word here is "unalienable". They were picking Locke over Hobbes.