The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many, including the writers of the Declaration, contend that human beings have a right to life. What does a "right to life" mean?

A right is defined as, "that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature (Princeton's Wordnet)." The "right to life" implies that human beings are naturally, inalienably owed continued existence. Continued existence or life requires the consumption of food, water and rest. These life-sustaining elements are procured through productive work, where "productive" is defined as value creating and "work" is defined as action. Productive work is necessary to provide the things men require to live.

However, if human beings have a right to exist, which is to say they are owed that which is necessary to survive, who is left producing such necessities? Who works? If no one has any obligation to work (As everyone has a right to live), how is life sustained?

As explained, the idea that men have a "right to life" is nonsensical. Perhaps men do not have a right to live. If no right to life exists, what would that mean?

No man chose to be born - to exist. No man can avoid dying - we all will die. Simply put, man is coerced into both life and death.

Despite this natural coercion, during the course of most men's lives, existence is a choice: man chooses existence over non-existence by way of choosing to eat food, drink water and engage in other life-sustaining or improving behaviors. A man's perpetual existence is predicated on his ability to secure these things. Because resources are not free, man must trade a piece of his current life for future life (i.e. time/energy for food): we call this trade, work.

Work has meant different things throughout history: hunting and gathering, agriculture, and division of labor and trade. All of these endeavors have been increasingly efficient means to secure life. Only productive work can perpetuate existence. Working is simply the manifestation of the choice to live.

This understanding begs certain important questions:

If man has no right to life - if he is responsible for securing his continued existence, can he take what he needs from other men without their permission? Alternatively, what prevents other men from stealing the product of man's productive work?

The answer to these questions can be explained by analogy to estoppel. Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents an individual from refuting a position such individual previously held. You might also liken this concept to Aristotle's law of noncontradiction.

As applied to the discussion of the choice to live, if a man chooses to inflict harm on another human being, he consequently forgoes his right to protect himself from others. By voluntarily disregarding the life of another, he disregards his own life.

Two classic expressions capture this concept well:

• You live by the sword and you die by the sword.
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Estoppel precludes men from taking the life, which is merely the product of work, of others.

Therefore, a man's life is the result of his choice to engage in productive work, which is rightfully protected from the injurious acts of others. There is no de facto right to life in excess of the right to protect and the ability to sustain.

Though life is freely given it is not freely sustained; life requires some form of productive work. Fortunately for the modern man, in a free society with a market economy, productive work can mean doing just about anything.

There are a few lingering questions that I will leave unanswered for now. Here they are: If one cannot self-sustain, can one rightfully take from others who have more than they need? How is need defined? What makes continued existence worthwhile: why choose to keep living?