Which rights are inherent?
The right to do anything that doesn’t harm others.
Could you vague that up just a bit more, please?
Wouldn’t that issue go more toward your “rights” as a paying customer? The movie theater management might be seen as having an obligation to take reasonable action to encourage the loud talker to be quiet/leave or else refund your money because you are not satisfied with the service you received. I don’t really see that as a natural rights issue.
That’s what I believe natural rights are. Not a list, like the Bill of Rights, but the blanket freedom to do what you desire, so long as it does no harm to others.
If you want to debate the ‘list’ form of rights, sorry, I’m not the man for that.
Are you saying that legal rights can trump Natural Rights?
What does “harm others” mean exactly? Directly? Indirectly? Physically? Emotionally? Economically?
Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Bentham and scores of others having been arguing back and forth over the existence of (and/or balance between) natural law versus legal positivism for millenia. If y’all solve the whole thing in this thread, somebody email me. 
This thread reminds me of a George Carlin joke about the sanctity of life:
“You know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? 'Cuz we’re alive.”
There’s no such thing as natural rights. Even those who believe in natural rights, as they are discussing the philosophical implication of such a concept, have to impose outside criteria on what defines them. As an example, people will typically say something like, as many have already done in this thread, “Well, you have the natural right to do as you please as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.”
…um, okay. Why? Why are natural rights limited in their scope to those actions that don’t interfere with the natural rights of others? Where do you stop the proverbial buck? What if I talk a person into killing him/herself? I don’t mean a depressed person; I mean, I legitimately make an argument that life isn’t worth living and he kills himself. I exercised my natural right to free speech and the other person made the conscious decision to kill himself. I haven’t done anything, strictly speaking, outside the purview of the above definition of natural rights, yet because of my intervention, a human life is dead, so in a sense I’ve infringed upon the rights of someone else, i.e. his right to life.
Beyond the philosophical contradictions that arise when talking about ‘natural rights’, where’s the empirical evidence? I have read no academic studies or research papers studying which natural rights have a basis in empirical reality. As far as I know, I can and am able to do whatever the hell I please, whether or not it infringes on someone else’s rights. The only thing that limits me is human biology and the laws of physics.
To go back to a Carlin quote, I think my views are summed up as follows: “Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all.”
Which, I think, is completely true. Either I have the right to do EVERYTHING or I have the right to do nothing. And included in the set of everything is of course my right to kill you. Of course, you also have the right to kill me right back.
Use of force or fraud against another’s person or their property. ‘Emotionally’ would qualify in some circumstances, such as defamation.
It can be indirect, if the outcome was reasonably forseeable.
Sounds more like Libertarianism.
This is the nature of ethics.
Science can only study what’s objective; ethics are subjective.
None of your points are unique to natural rights, by the way, but instead all ethics and theories of rights.
Yes, because the theory of natural rights that I’ve described is a part of deontological libertarianism.
There are other theories of natural rights, of course.
I, personally, don’t believe in any such thing as natural rights. All rights are yours insofar as you can defend them, or is part of a society that does. You can scream and shout as loud as you want, but if you don’t have the power to enforce those rights, those are not universal or natural
I agree that regardless of the philisophical wellspring, in practical terms rights must be vigorously protected by society if they are to flourish. I hold this as a duty we all share.
And you do this duty instead of me, all the better! 
Lousy free-rider problem!
Natural Duty that we all share? Now there’s a premise I reject outright and without reservation.
The duty isn’t natural, purely practical.
No.