You do realize, Issodhos, that e pluribus unum is Latin, no? It has a longer lineage than its appearance on the great seal, and has multiple meanings - one of which is that the collection of States created the Union (hence the name, "United States"). It was also a popular phrase in connection with discussion of commonwealths, as I tried to point out earlier, as it implied that the power of the State came from its people, not from on high or based upon birthright. e pluribus unum At the time this was a pretty radical concept. I suppose you haven't spent much time on the Constitution, have you - its structure and purpose? Oh, but discussion of that substantive portion of my earlier post would detract from the distraction of focusing on semantics, wouldn't it?

"Rights" are merely interests that have gained sufficient importance to be protected by legal strictures - oh, which means protected by the State. Inconvenient, that. The idea that they exist independent of any sort of structure is a logical impossibility, but an aspirational and rhetorical point that inspired the Enlightenment thinkers, and conceptually something I have always honored. It is an important touchstone concept for the balancing of interests between individuals, and between individuals and "the people." Unfortunately in the hands of libertarians, the concept "natural rights" tends to devolve into a meaningless muddle of logical impossibility, as was noted by many earlier posts. Stripped of nuance and context "rights" tend to become rather hollow and ephemeral. It is akin to trying to take the Bible as literal truth, and leads down the same rabbit hole of discongruity. (How does one define a "right," for example, without reference to an authority? It's one of those "nice to have" concepts if it isn't recognized and protected. By whom? Oops, haring off into substance again, aren't I? Bad habit, that.)

I'm getting the impression, Issdhos, that you prefer to delve into semantics and ignore the substance, though. It is a disappointing habit. I will leave you to that. (I also suspect you never read the articles from the first post, but it is just a guess on my part.)

By the way, disagreement does not make a premise "false" - it just means you don't like, or didn't understand it. What I actually said was, "Failure of the premise requires failure of the conclusion."
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich