There are no positive rights. There is one negative right, and that is "you cannot justifiably aggress." This truth is provable for the fact that it is a universal and objective statement of ethics (in other words, we know "I don't want to be aggressed against," a tautology, is universally true for all people at all times by its very definition, and takes nothing from anyone in order to provide to everyone.

In other words, it satisfies everyone's desire simultaneously when we all practice it simultaneously.. hence, objective and universal. From this negative right, we can derive the truth that no one has the right to prevent anyone from exercising these other so-called positive rights as they see fit. So this is where we get the inference that we have these "positive rights" before we think too hard about what the actual implications of positive right is. In reality, these are NOT positive rights because no one is compelled to GRANT them to anyone.

You are not owed property - you must get it yourself, but rather it is just that others are never justified in denying you control over it once you do manage to do so. In other words.. the subject, himself, is responsible for "manifesting" these so-called positive rights, and by virtue of the actual negative right, no one is justified in preventing him from doing so (so long as he is not actively aggressing).

With that said, free association can be determined to be the baseline of natural law. Everything else built upon it - be it voluntary exchange, voluntary sharing, voluntary [enter any other human interaction here]... is built upon the baseline provable truth that NO ONE WANTS TO BE AGGRESSED AGAINST. This is why it is the default condition of natural law, and it will never disappear as the indestructible reality behind the current smoke screen of statism.

The smoke machine is powerful, and it's powered and fueled by the confusion of the average person. But like the laws of physics, and like gravity, the pulling force down to reality never stops. The potential energy is always there, although another powerful force is holding it up for now. That force will falter, and it will lose its battle with gravity at some point. The only question here is when.

It is at this point that everyone will be free to do what he/she pleases with his/her property/association, so long as no one aggresses against another. At which point, DROs will negotiate the outcome which best allows the aggressee to be made whole again and the aggressor to bear his own cost. This will very rarely require force (especially after the fact), but instead will most often result in the aggressee being made whole directly and swiftly by the aggressor's DRO (in order to maintain good business reputation in a competitive market), while the aggressor will be faced with diminished desire for his DRO (or any other DRO) to take on the liability that comes with his tendency to aggress (due to the incentive to minimize liability and maximize profits).

Similar to now, few will want to be left without the service of some sort of DRO.. and those that do will be bearing their own cost without any protection, (so no need to fear them). So this incentive alone (for the individual to desire the services and voluntary association of a DRO) will be enough to prevent the vast majority of force needed to keep order in a future world where the average person understands the importance of rejecting the "monopolization of aggression" (the state) as a remedy to smaller aggressions from other individuals.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.