If this is the best argument that someone like Molyneux can come up with in opposition to the notion of natural rights, then that tells me I'm on the right track.

"Otherwise valid notion A is now invalid because it became distorted by disingenuous politicians" is-- to use Molyneux's common quip-- not an argument against the validity of the notion.

It doesn't help that the caller is an absolutely terrible proponent of the body of natural law-- the conversation goes completely off the rails almost immediately. Many of the video's commenters are much better-- for example: "natural rights begin at self ownership and actions derived from that including association, contracts, property, purchases, freedom of action, etc."

It's also really strange that Molyneux rejects the concept, since his "universally preferable behavior" is essentially a (sort of shameless) re-branding of natural rights theory. All of this makes me question the logical consistency of his world view; if there are no natural rights in his mind, then how does he support the argument that the use of force is wrong, or that self defense is virtuous, and so on?

The video is also painful in that the caller equates natural law to object-oriented programming-- uh, wat-- followed by Molyneux providing, quite possibly, the worst explanation ever of said paradigm. I could scarcely listen!