If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
Depends.
If you were in Iraq under Saddam Hussein at the time of the attack, and was your assailant was one of his sons, you can be justified as hell, and still wind up as dead as the dinosaurs.
If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does.
THAT IS the justification for self-defense.
Since rights are lawfully imposed limits on the actions of others, the realm of the "right" exists outside the realm of the base animal. But that means rights must be defined arbitrarily. Defined by people. And hence rights are not absolutes.
If you live in a society where the government allows you to fight back when someone tries to kill you, you may fight back. If that government doesn't allow it, you may not fight back. If the government allows slavery, you may not fight your bonds. If it prohibits slavery, you may fight your bonds. That's the squishy nature of taking rights as some arbitrary privilege granted by State. But the three questions I ask are base to rights. If I am always in the right to protect my life when threatened, then right to life cannot be defined through society or government.[/quote]
Nope. You're assigning a value judgement of rightness and wrongness to your actions, actions based on the animal instincts of self-preservation, territoriality, and independence. Unfortunately, instinctual driven actions are not subject to moral censure or judgement, and are not relevant to the discussion.
The Divine Right of Kings supersedes your presumed right to life, and if you kill the king's men who are excercising their freedom to burn your farm house down under the king's authority, your non-existent right to life doesn't protect you from the King's wrath.
Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
Rights are abitrary.
The right to life doesn't extend to all humans, it's only applied to those humans who are lucky enough to be born.
The right to own property was superseded by the Kelo vs New London decision.
Your right to self-defense is not expanded to permit you to defend yourself against cops executing a search warrant on your home.
How then, are these "absolute" rights you claim circumvented? Because they're not absolutes, they're abstract concepts INSIDE the law, and if your government re-writes the law, your rights get limited.