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.

i guess the pursuit of happiness falls under liberty?

Pursuit of happiness is the declaration. It's humorous to consider, but the declaration isn't a legal document, it was an open 'dear john' letter to the king.

lol

i do declare, f*ck off

I can put a finer point on my argument earlier... The Press as we know it was intended to be the realization of the Freedom of the press, not the beneficiary.

The argument being floated in favor of Jim is that the media owns the freedom, implying that the commoner doesn't.

There is, in fact, explicitly no rank in government that is not that of a commoner, and yet we're allowing the media to encroach where our government leaders already have as well.

Equality is shot when you consider that congress can make rules that don't apply to them. But that's another subject.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/campaign-finance-spending-elections-first-amendment-20181116.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-kansas-official-tells-black-woman-he-belongs-master-race-n937076

That 28th amendment thing doesn't seem like a bad idea

Also that nbc article is awful, he literally made a joke that requires you don't agree with Nazis to find funny

"I don't want you to think I'm picking on you because we're part of the master race"

Ikr?

It was a dig at identity politics

But of course, the intentional snowflakes go running

```Grenade123heute um 21:24 Uhr
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-kansas-official-tells-black-woman-he-belongs-master-race-n937076```
Well, he kinda has a point, hasn't he?
I mean you'd only want to move to Countrys made by caucasians, right?

Stopgap measures.

If you're going to make an amendment make it something big, like abolishing political parties.

That's not a too bad idea.

or make them small, regional

Allow for affiliation, requiring transparency, abolish campaign finance outside constituent boundaries

Oh nice.