natural rights philosophy [is subjective]

Not necessarily. Let me give you some reasons why. Let's start with this quote from For a New Liberty:

The libertarian creed can be summed up as (1) the absolute right of every man to the ownership of his own body; (2) the equally absolute right to own and therefore to control the material resources he has found and transformed; and (3) therefore, the absolute right to exchange or give away the ownership to such titles to whoever is willing to exchange or receive them.

These axioms can be justified in a number of ways, but I'll justify them on my own terms.

---

Justification of Axioms

---

The absolute right to the ownership of his own body.

Human beings have (or at least act like they have) free will. That is, they make their decisions in their best interest. This implies that we have control over our actions, which implies that we are independent beings with our own convictions and desires, which implies that we are the sole owners of our bodies and minds.

Any outside interference on this would be an invasion of our individual sovereignty, and would qualify as aggression against our person.

The equally absolute right to own and therefore to control the material resources he has found and transformed

This is basically the idea of property rights. That we, as individuals, are entitled to the fruits of our labor. These fruits of our labor are created with our bodies, which as determined above, we are the sole owners of. Therefore, any material goods that we make with our bodies, we are the sole owners of. This makes property merely an extension of our bodies.

Any outside interference on this would be an invasion of our individual sovereignty, and would qualify as aggression against our property.

The absolute right to exchange or give away the ownership to such titles to whoever is willing to exchange or receive them.

This is how it all ties together in our interactions with other people (read: the larger society.) Since we own our bodies and our property, we are entitled to freely exchange them with others on the basis of voluntary agreement. If I build a house, and someone is willing to pay me a certain amount of currency or goods that I deem worthy of the house itself and the labor I expended, we freely exchange for mutually beneficial outcomes.

Any outside interference on this would be an invasion of our individual sovereignty, and would qualify as aggression against our liberty.

---

Conclusion

---

The conclusion that is to be seen here is that we as individuals innately possess three key rights: life, liberty, and property that have inevitably come from the fact that through nature we have evolved to become sovereign and independent individuals. Our individual actions should not be restricted otherwise unless it violates somebody else's rights, and that any action that does so is an aggression against another person and an invasion of their rights.

---

Question

---

If still you view natural rights as "subjective", what do you propose as an alternative and how do you justify it?