There is no logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that society gets to coerce me. So, no, you do not have the right to coerce me.

However, there is a logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that we should establish government for protection from coersion.

Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril.

I see your problem, you think logic matters, it doesn't, this isn't that world. In this world, numbers matter, votes, not logic. Rights are a social construct, we have whatever rights we've all agreed we have and no more. Any talk about natural rights and logic and positive vs negative rights is just that, meaningless talk; policy comes from those who acquire power, not those with the best arguments and facts.

> Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril.

Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works.

Don't turn this around as "my problem." I don't have a problem. I look at reality and I derive the correct conclusions.

Including the fact that I live in a mixed economy.

I am not the one in conflict with reality.

Logic and talk are not meaningless. There are reasons that there once was an Enlightenment, ultimately culminating in the founding of the only contry originally based on the concept of individual rights---the United States.

And hopefully we can get there again. Greater than the tread of mighty armies, is the idea whose time has come.

Of course, to make the time come, much intellectual groundwork will have to be laid.

> Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works.

It is perilous. For instance, the US is in a perma-recession. In the long run, this is quite dangerous.

You are explicitly advocating that we ignore reality. That should be enough to make my point and probably everything else I just said is just distracting from it.