All rights are property rights.

One of the most vexing arguments surrounding rights are those who think there's a distinction between, say, property rights and civil rights or social rights or whatever.

It's all the same thing, and all rights are property rights. First principle is that you own yourself or should. You own your own body, your mind, your speech, your heart. Springing from that, justly acquired property you own through the application of yourself to your environment by putting in inputs of labor, skill, capital, work ethic, luck, and whatever else that ain't infringing on the rights of others... or in the case of inheritance someone else's inputs. It's just a logical extension of self ownership, not a different thing.

You're justly allowed to do things which may or may not be harmful if the victim is just yourself or society, to love who you want, whether they're called sins or not... as long as you don't directly hurt others through force or fraud... specifically because you own yourself. You're able to hold onto what you've worked for or created because you own yourself and therefore the fruits of your labor.

I'm not immediately sure how this got subdivided into different subcategories that society built worldviews around when it all springs from the same source.

I get the pragmatist argument for "given reality, some exceptions might make sense on the fringes" to the basic principle.

Hell... taxes and government are inevitable, even if some applications are better than others. But it seems so weird to me to be like "I agree with liberty in these categories of human activity but not these other ones" in a general sense like they're not all manifestations of the same basic premise for any other reason than reaching the conclusion first and then working backwards to justify.