Uh... that's a bit far. Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition. Certainly freedom from physical suffering is orthogonal, no? Or you're saying that it's OK to, say, stab you repeatedly as long as you're on my property and I'm not stealing anything from you?
And sure, sure, I know you can get around this by defining your body and mind as your property. But then the whole thing becomes kind of a silly point, no? Everything can be a property right if everything is defined as someone's property. That's hardly profound.
Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition.
Really? He was actually paraphrasing Ayn Rand. Although, she would probably put it more like this:
>>>
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
