RE: Rights- reciprocal or absolute?
Every right stems from the fundamental private property right. Again, precision of language makes it simpler to understand the issue and arrive at the solution. You have a right to ownership in your body, and this is a priori true. From this arises every other valid right that exists. However, this right is contingent upon you extending those rights to others. Once you violate those rights in others, you estop yourself from claiming it in your defense. Put another way, the act of violation of the right to ownership in another's person or property is an explicit rejection of that ownership. That explicit rejection means you cannot claim it in your own defense. This is why self-defense is justified.
When I say this right is reciprocal, it means that, when there is a conflict, the party who rejects this right is the one who cannot use it in his or her defense. The victim, who has not rejected it, is ethically blameless from using violence to prevent further abrogation of his or her property, either in their person or their external property.
If you demonstrate that your reject a right, you forfeit your ability to appeal to it. This is estoppel, and this is why you can justify self-defense of others.
"You have a right to ownership in your body, and this is a priori true. From this arises every other valid right that exists."
Right.
"...the act of violation of the right to ownership in another's person or property is an explicit rejection of that ownership. That explicit rejection means you cannot claim it in your own defense."
Good luck with that.
Whether a person can claim something or not doesn't make it go away. Unless it is what I call a privilege and you call a right.
"When I say this right is reciprocal, it means that, when there is a conflict, the party who rejects this right is the one who cannot use it in his or her defense."
Nice, but that's not what people mean by "reciprocal". I guess you need to define the word as you use it.
And, I will say I mostly agree, all except in the warped way you are using the word "reciprocal". So, really, it's just a matter of speaking different languages. We agree on the concepts, just not the words to describe those concepts.
How isn't that what is meant by reciprocal? This is from Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed.:
Since this is a discussion of legal responsibilities and entitlements, there's only one relevant meaning for reciprocal. We're not talking about math, right? Reciprocal means both parties extend the same to the other, and that if one party doesn't do so, the other party isn't required to do the same.
This is precisely why it's important to understand the underlying principle beneath non-aggression: the right to not consent. Since this is, in fact, a right, you're arguing that the right to not consent must be absolute. If that's the case, then self-defense can never be justifiable.
We're on the same side, here. If I gave you the impression I'm arguing with you that non-aggression is incorrect, that wasn't my intention. You're also correct about what you said about phrasing in the other post. Put more precisely (which I should have done), you have a right not to consent - known more commonly as the right to private property ownership.