Greger no one is "bashing" issodhos nor anyone else, we are, however, challenging some assertions and that is what this board does so well.

I think, with regard to your "mine mine mine" statement, that you have conflated desire with right. Of course humans are aquisitive and no doubt protective of what they have acquired. That is precisely what I and others have acknowledged as underlying the other human trait, the use of force to protect acquisitions.

But lets get history correct. Early humans had first to develop a sense of "self" before either ownership or rights could be conceived of. That took many millenia to come about. As it developed, most small hunter-gatherer clusters evolved into chiefdoms which is when the first concept of differentiation of role and place occurred.

Some time later these chiefdoms evolved into tribes, where the first forms of specialized behavior and public forms of structure came about. At none of these levels is there any notion of individual rights, as contrasted to a very primitive and developing concept of individual ownership.

The notion of rights probably did develop around property, but at all times was it clear that the right without a system of enfocing those rights made the right illusory.

The whole discussion of whether that right sprang from the state or was inalienable is a false dichotomy. The concept of rights sprang from the ego developed mind of man and those with an interest in stability and order found it expedient to use the state to enforce claims of right.

I have no quarrel with the concept of "inalienable" rights if it is also recognized that absent state enforcement and protection of those rights, they are illusory and therefore an abstraction. I see nothing advancing the practical, down to earth, real world experience of living that is enhanced by that abstraction.

Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul