Brian, I feel we are coming closer with every comment. Regarding my point 1 and your response, I feel that perhaps "leap of faith" may be a too-strong phrasing for what I'm trying to convey; I only used that phrase for the quick connection to your comment, I guess. To elaborate, when one deals with other people, who supposedly occupy and think inside of the same frame of reference (that being the human-centric ethical realm of those nearest you, since there is a hint of spatial or geographic continuity to these properties), a certain level of trust exists that this person passing you on the sidewalk carrying a shopping bag and eating an ice cream cone will not spontaneously pull a gun and just randomly give you a double tap to the head and continue walking and licking. This modicum of trust was what I was referring to as a leap of faith to believe the passerby held, at least, the same basic standards regarding life, etc that we consider the natural rights (and because of a perceived balance of power resulting in little gain or negative consequences; reason and logic at work!). Because there is some spatial continuity to the distribution and variation of these base ethics, the same trust, or level of trust, may not be present while walking the streets in a far away city on a different continent with a different culture (see the female western reporter wearing the burqa (sp?) in the middle east).

Regarding point number 2, this is where I feel we are getting closer and closer. I realize that the frame we speak about is the previously mentioned human-centric frame that exists in the larger frame of nature and the universe. If we were to refer to and think in the larger frame all the time, it would be like calculating our speed of travel on a freeway relative to the sun every time we drive. Likewise, though, if we were to only recognize the human-centric frame while denying the existence of the larger frame or simply ignoring it altogether, that would be akin to ignoring the fact that there is a sun and other bodies outside of the region we refer to as Earth. This only comes into conflict when stuff from outside the Earth or outside of our human frame of reference penetrates into the frame rather than just remaining a projection of something onto the frame.

Even inside of our chosen frame of reference the concept of the Natural Rights that sprung from some rational basis can only apply to the rational creatures inside of it. When humans become irrational they essentially leave our frame of reference and become part of the larger frame of nature where it is simply survival of the fittest. Dealing with such folks inside of the rational frame is a losing proposition because they aren't playing by the same rules. I think what Roderick was saying in the quote above about these concepts needing protected, not providing protection, would be bringing more people into the same frame of reference (utopia being everyone included) or defending this frame of reference from those outside of it like a city wall.

Essentially, we deal strictly inside of our frame of reference as a sort of shorthand. But, I think what Sunni was talking about in this post is that we need to be aware of what the longhand is and not assume that the shorthand is the whole story; too many shortcuts end up getting us lost.

P.S. I hope your happy. I have the phrase "roll jazz" firmly stuck in my head. I'm not sure what it means exactly, but it evokes a smooth coolness that I can dig. 8)