Immutable Rights

If A assaults B, B has a natural tendency to defend himself. He does so without asking whether he may defend himself. This is posited as evidence B has a "Natural Right" to self-defense.

Nevertheless, A assaulted B without asking whether he had a right to assault him. A may well have concocted some self-serving pretext (e.g., pre-emptive strike) for his assault. Does A have a "Natural Right" to assault B?

N.B., when it comes to foreign policy, the Randroids think so. At least they do when A is a civilized nation like the U.S. (!) defending (!!) itself via wholesale civilian slaughter (!!!) of barbarians like Iraqis and Afghanis (among others).