You&#x27;re the second person to claim tautology, but you&#x27;ve both been wrong.  &quot;Reality works as I&#x27;ve described&quot; is not tautological.  &quot;Reality works as reality works&quot; is tautological.  &quot;As I&#x27;ve described is as I&#x27;ve described&quot; is tautological.  I&#x27;m further asserting, beyond the givens, that what I&#x27;ve described presents a difference from alternative conclusions, and what I&#x27;ve described represents the set of physical laws of this universe, rather than the ideological so-called &quot;rules&quot; of society, which are <i>not</i> enforced via the physical laws of this universe.<p>We&#x27;re talking about &quot;rights&quot; in the context of &quot;what can and can&#x27;t be done&quot;, and I&#x27;m concluding that what some people are claiming as &quot;unalienable&quot; or &quot;innate&quot; aren&#x27;t actually so.<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter how many people &quot;feel entitled&quot; to anything.  It does <i>not</i> seem that the state is &quot;forced&quot; to do anything.  The state can choose to act and behave a certain way, but &quot;forced&quot; is simply wrong, as a way to describe how the state behaves.  &quot;Influence&quot; is more accurate, certainly.<p>It may feel &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;, the fact that the state maintains absolute control, but it&#x27;s true.  Only through the grace of the state&#x27;s benevolence does the influence of individuals or groups matter.  The state gives you many ways to move through its control, and is generally benevolent, but not because it has to be.