The difference between legal rights and natural rights is that legal rights are guaranteed by force. As soon as you guarantee a natural right by force it becomes a legal right: you make the law.
You just reiterated your previous statement without addressing my point.
According to you, it is morally OK for government to decide what is a right and what isn't. In that case, is there anything morally wrong with government deciding to nationalize all retirement savings?
It is always legally OK for a government to decide what is right and what isn't. It may or may not be morally OK with an individual member of the society, depending on the particular law. I like some laws, I don't like other laws. I believe a healthy government provides legal guarantees about rights to its citizens in accordance with their morals, on average, and so I am morally OK with such a government.
Governments are a natural extension of parents. Goodness or badness is not an all-or-nothing proposition; nobody has perfect parents, but most people accept that in general, having parents that make and enforce the rules is a good thing. It is quite possible to have terrible parents though, in which case escape might be a good idea.
I just don't understand why anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is so great. The international situation today is a capitalist anarchy among nations, and the US abuses its immense power to call most of the shots. How would it be any different at the level of individuals?
According to you, it is morally OK for government to decide what is a right and what isn't. In that case, is there anything morally wrong with government deciding to nationalize all retirement savings?