The right of freedom from murder. I will grant you that rights in-and-of themselves are abstract and somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things, but they are common enough from society to society that patterns start to emerge and one can start to identify what could be considered to be a universally agreed upon inalienable right. All I'm stating is that my right to live free from murder exists whether or not someone is there to keep me from harm.

It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm. It is, however, commonly understood as a negative right because it requires inaction from others rather than action. And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government, the right of freedom from murder does not require that one exists at all. Therefore, it exists outside of societal constructs and is inalienable.

>The right of freedom from murder.

How are you going to enforce that right after it's been violated?

>It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm.

I wouldn't say necessitates, but I would predict a lot more murdering absent the expectation of reprisal from your tribe or government.

> And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government

It would be better since governments murder people too, and since because universal inaction is universal. So sign me up! We can get started right away. I promise I won't murder you if you'll promise not to murder me. Deal?