Like I said, property rights could be seen as people with property wanting protection for their shit without them having to guard it 24/7

Thus making a law for it so that they can prosecute someone violating their property rights

No, not really at all

It's more like "What are some common denominators that are considered 'OK' for people to be violent over?"

Life, Liberty, Property

In any of those situations, the common person would be like "Oh, okay, I understand. Yeah, he's free to go."

So, in a sense, "natural rights" although existing in a hypothetical 'Natural stateless society' still presupposes that there *is indeed a society.*

Natural rights do not exist in a vacuum.

Yes, they need people and they need an organized society

Because if there are certain rights you need to be able to guarantee them

Not what I meant, tbh

And if there are certain laws you need to be able to enforce them

Let me rephrase: Natural rights presuppose that there is someone around to violate them in the first place.

There could be, but there is no guarantee that there is

Stop and rethink that

What I meant is that there is no absolute guarantee that there will be someone around to violate said rights

There very well could be though

okay, I feel like we're talking past each other here

Yeah same

My take on natural rights/laws is that for them to be natural, they need to be inherent to people

I'm supposing that you are the literal last man on earth.

You now have no need for natural rights, because there's no one to violate them.

That is a pretty solid statement, can’t argue with it

I think its an important place to start from

Add in a second person, and what happens?

The only reason you would ever defend yourself against them is for your life, liberty, or your property.

There's your natural rights. The mutually agreed upon reasons for instigating violence.

That is also true

But I just thought of something regarding the laws and rights situation

You would need at least 3 people for such systems to work

Since you have two people against each other, but you’d also need a neutral arbiter to break the stalemate

Why?

If we have two people in conflict over their natural rights, then the only solution would be for one of them to come out on top, thus having the other’s rights violated

The third person is there to guarantee that both individuals’ rights are respected

And that one does not infringe upon the right of the other

Why do you assume that coming out on top = violating someone else's rights?

(But, tbh, you do come up on the modern qualms with natural rights in that assesment.)

I’m trying to find the right words to phrase it

But let’s say we have two people quarreling over their property rights

This quarrel can be resolved in two ways, one is that either one of them wins the conflict and comes out on top

You're conflating two aspects of the violence into one thing called "conflict"

Offense/defense

Anyway, in this violent conflict, if one beats the other into a pulp and wins, it violated the other’s right to for example their own physical safety