I don't need to "demonstrate" how a right can be a right if there's conflict, because I've made no claim that a right can not exist outside of conflict.
You're misconstruing the notion of a right being protected and/or respected by others as being REQUIRED for a right to exist. I disagree entirely.
A Natural Right is simply something that an individual, in the state of nature, is free to attempt and do as they see fit.
There is no protection against having those rights infringed upon. There is no "right" for your rights to not be interfered with.
I do not believe a natural right can be something that requires an action (or inaction) on the part of another person.
I understand human nature is that an individual will try their best to survive in a fashion that most pleases them.How do you understand human nature?
In a state of nature, absent a social contract, this is essentially survival of the fittest.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
More absurdity. You have not demonstrated such.
There are actions. Period. Then there are interpretations of those actions. Period
Those interpretations are subjective. Period.
Your interpretations come from your subjective view on what is right and wrong. Which only makes them objective within that framework.
But in reality, because it is only based on a personal belief, it is therefore subjective.
There is no universal morality.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
And as demonstrated, these morals show aggressive homicide to be wrong.