So, if even life itself is not a right one can insist on, from our nature alone, then what right can there be?

There's the paradox I was trying to point out.

It's not a paradox when there are no rights, except ones in the legal sense.

There can be contradictory rights, just as an axiomatic system can be ill defined, but that's about it.

Even the number system in Mathematics is not "natural" - it is arbitrary, but is comprised of axioms that have to be conflict free in order for it to be useful.

I'm trying to think along your path, but I can't figure a way out of this.

The only way I could think of reasoning rights into existence is to somehow reason from nature and physics itself.

So, property rights could maybe be reasoned into existence that way, but it's still a tough sell.

I'm in the headspace of the founders right now. I understand, but these challenges are in explanation, a challenge I'm enjoying.

Still, hard with work and cell phone...

You're rather correct in a way.

My use of primal is in reference to numerical primes.

Indivisible and indescribable past a certain point.

It's only evident with other facts.

Once I've got time I'll try to expand on that. I've got to focus for now. We'll keep talking.

oh shit, you replied to all that. didn't see. let me catch up

I'll do more external reading on the subject. I remember Stefan Molyneux discussing this. I'll see if they were able to resolve this.

We're at a deep level here...

@Undead Mockingbird also, you can't really talk about legality without establishing that rights exist first.

A testament to how rights are in fact a prime.

As far as property, even communism recognizes the concept of ownership.

I'm not sure about that. All you need is consensus.

You don't need a prior legal framework.

Legality didn't originate from concensus

Law originated from dictate.

And that dictate implies rights held by at least one individual.

Law does not establish the rights, it recognizes them, or suppresses them.

I think I found my/our answer:

I was churning on this for quite a while, and having no rights is just as much a might makes right world as one would be without morals

our rights should come from the same place where our morals come from -wherever that is

and, i think we can argue where our morals come from, which was not too far removed from deriving them from our nature/physical reality

we are a social species and even physiologically, we are endowed with mirror neurons and so forth. we have a strong sense of what it means to be social and dysfunction/psychopathy

that might have changed greatly over time, but there are some principles that have been relatively immutable

I am still working on it, but I think one can start making a case for universal morality and thus universal rights from that angle. It's still a bit vague

stefan molyneux had made a similar argument for his universal morality

I think that's a good path.

I think it's worth communicating what I consider a right.

So, I'm where the founders were. I believe there are three prime rights, life liberty and property.

So, breathing is a right. Let's start there.

Self defense finds itself under liberty and life

If something is going to kill you, it is your right to try to avoid it.