I'd hoped you'd be able to infer... I've been on the job this whole time, on a phone...

And by primal, I think you were making an analogy to axiomatic.

No, I am not trying to play devil's advocate or be purposefully dense.

I am myself not sure where we are going to conclude with this, which is why I find it interesting.

I know, I just hoped that word communicated my meaning.

Okay, primal, axiomatic. IT's still a hard concept to apply to rights, because subdividing a right is not an intuitive concept.

The right to own a balloon could be "broken down", because the right to property might be more general and be a superset of that right - an "axiom" - but it still does not explain where property rights come from.

I still think that, if a right can be violated, it only has validity insofar as there is consensus.

I suppose this does come to philosophical subjectiveness

If a right is somehow above and beyond consensus, then it seems we would also not be able to violate rights, because they would be "beyond the realm of government".

The only way to argue that rights come from a source more authoritative than consensus seems, to me, to reason from reality or nature itself.

And when one considers nature itself, not even life itself seems to be a given right.

But isn't the ability to express that concensus a right?

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: