Explicitly{government}, it didn't, implicitly, it always has......rights and ethics are determined via logic and reason aka philosophy....both science and philosophy have advanced in the last few hundred yrs.

That said, what difference does the state of past global politics/ethics have to do with things today?

Btw, there's no such thing as God{typical def}

There's nothing cold blooded about shooting someone on your property, ie, all decent and law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property at all times.

As I said before, it does seem very extreme to shoot someone over minor theft, and I can't imagine I'd do it, however, once you illegally enter a person's property, you lose many of your rights as you've proven to be a criminal and have rejected the social contract that gives the law abiding citizen their moral authority.

Criminal's minimal rights are dictated to them by decent law abiding citizens, not the other way round.

The alternative to a belief in individual rights, is the advocacy of some form of master/slave relationship…..this issue is black and white, ie, you can’t reject individual rights without wanting authoritarian control over people.

I can be considered as an Objectivist philosopher of sorts, so the bulk of my knowledge revolves around Objectivism’s political theory, however, I don’t agree with everything they say, but I do consider Objectivism to be the best philosophy overall.

With or without a God, we still need ethics, science and philosophy, so we may as well use the very best and latest thinking….it’s philosophy that grants man his individual rights, no need for an imaginary concept and the subsequent nonsense we find in all religious texts.

Every action has a justifable reaction. An act of aggression (robbery) can be matched with an equal act of aggression (deadly force). If one doesn't want to suffer the consequence of their actions, they shouldn't commit an act of aggression.

It is a simple agreement. You don't violate my individual rights and sovereignty and I won't violate yours. If you don't abide by the agreement, it is a crime against humanity (violated the agreement of mutual insured destruction).

That is why we have courts, David.

A court doesn't protect me or my property from a crim in my house does it?

Welcome, Jen! Actually, deadly force can only be used in response to repel deadly force. In the example; much as some might disagree; just shooting someone in your home can bring about many legal questions and situations for the homeowner in question (none of them good).If this homeowner felt his (or her) not to be in any imminent danger; reacting with deadly force is construed as illegal.