Universal axioms (across political spectrum's)

 Why do philosophers think natural liberty is important for human rights?

===============

I have to confess, that the answer to this question about what aims as a first cause in qualifying the other. Why is natural liberty figuratively in this question: more important than human rights. (The use of the word 'more' was not applied). But it appears that it is a first cause. Therefore, that's where my interpretation ends. (natural liberty = first cause) therefore equalizes human rights. Both terms are to act in conjunction with the other. We cannot declassify what should be universal axioms.

"Liberty is not a human right." would be read as false.

Reading what my proof's are (I would think) negates his question.

"Liberty is a function of human rights." would be read as true. (And if it were inversed = would also be true.)

My second proof as written above^ (I would think) philosophic.

- Marco

===========================

Two definitions needed here.

'Natural Liberty' and 'Human Rights'.

==========================

I agree. Though my rational self as acting philosophically to answer this question, would meta-define the terms per se and go from there. I do however reiterate that the definition would add context to welcome a more in depth discussion.

Therefore, one has to attempt.

 - Marco

================

What would your definitions be?

==================

Off the grid =

Natural Liberty defines our agency as equals (mortals) with equal partnership in a world without borders. (I would prefer a world constitution = acting as a universal construct.)

Human Rights is a derivative of the term natural liberty, in which the order of things in life has moral agency to treat each other unconditionally. (Fair Laws and good governance)

- Marco