The comment I was going to post there got too long I now give it it's own blog here:
It is testament to the state of our country which has thrown natural rights by the wayside that they have adopted so called "human rights"; they are a mockery of natural rights. It is merely a consequence of govt. abandoning the Individualist perspective in place of a communitarian one, born of too much power concentrated in too few hands.
To me the answer is simple; infringing on the natural rights of others (to life, liberty and property) and, regrettably, those laws set forth by our parliament means you give up those natural rights of yours that can be returned or compensated for at a later date if the arbitrating process (I.e. The justice system) fails and your are wrongly convicted.
As all other "civil and social rights" as Mr. Hirst posited are merely extensions, in both positive (eg the right to elect those who minister and formulate the law) and negative (eg the myriad "entitlements" mistakenly called rights, which usurp everyones natural rights) terms, of the natural rights then their denial is intertwined in that of the natural; the right to vote is an extension of the right to liberty and thus is rescinded when the criminal is convicted of infringing on someones own natural rights.
You are correct Old Holborn; what was done to Mr. Hogan is an injustice but only because of the deeper injustice contained in unjust laws and corrupt lawmakers- likewise with speeding.
But, to apply the same logic to a just infringement on someones natural rights is foolish; I would go further in stating that this brings Mr. Hogan down to Mr. Hirst's level.
I'm beginning to understand a very important point about the philosophy of liberty (I believe it was Obo who pointed it out shortly before he gave up, kind of); one of the main "gauntlets" laid down by challengers to the libertarian message could be written thusly: "if your ideas are so great then why not start a political party and see if people will vote you in to pursue that goal" - this is the rationale of the guilty rapist or murderer who will tell himself and his victim that "they were asking for it"; it makes the victim of injustice the offender and turns the concept of justice on it's head.
By removing the right to liberty and property justice is served; to say we must overturn justice when it comes to natural rights because there are miscarriages of justice or the law is abused in dealing with things beyond natural rights (Mr. Hogan for example) is to accept there is something wrong with your argument, not something wrong with their supposition that you should fight for laws that respect natural rights.
Fighting for a prisoners right to vote because their is legislative abuse of the justice system is silly arguement; removal of those natural rights that can be returned or compensated for in the event of a miscarriage of justice is a legitimate action to take on someone who infringes on another's natural rights. We fight a lost battle when we accept that the cause for freedom is something we should bet for, rather than claim by right.
Way too long, hyperbolic, but gets my point across.