The Great Experiment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Over the course of my career I’ve automated over 500 jobs. 90% of the savings went straight to the wealthy. [/quote]

Do you have any sort of documentation to prove this?
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have put in a specific percentage; It’s difficult to really measure it properly. But I’ve got the following data for the companies I have worked for: total employment numbers slowly declining, wages flat, profits slowly growing, and stock price showing decent growth.

I think it shows the majority of any efficiencies are going to the shareholders. And the top 20% of households own ~90% of the market (The ‘democratization of the stock market’ that never happened | Economic Policy Institute).
[/quote]

It sounds like, from the limited info you provided, the company is not operating in a very steady environment. I could be wrong without the details though.

I don’t see the problem with the top 20% of households owning the vast majority of stocks. That’s the vast majority of the Middle Class iirc. We’re talking 401(k) here. Part of that is going to be choice, obviously and, unfortunately, part of that is a lack of expendable income.

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The same wealthy who then look down on the unemployed who aren’t skilled enough to take on more demanding cognitive work. It is not a great feeling.[/quote]

Should someone with money feel bad for less / unskilled workers? Why or why not? [/quote]

That’s a complex topic and my overall thoughts are that feelings aren’t important here. It’s more about realising that “there but by the grace of God go I”. Millions of good people around the world live in poverty and fear, including hundreds of thousands of Americans. And it’s much more scary in the US because it indicates our style of governance is not really working out for a lot of us.[/quote]

The hundreds of thousands of Americans is probably a stretch (imo), but I agree that we could do better with poverty. I don’t think via the sword is the way to do it though (in general) and people have to be willing to help themselves too.

142

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Millions of good people around the world live in poverty and fear, including hundreds of thousands of Americans. And it’s much more scary in the US because it indicates our style of governance is not really working out for a lot of us.[/quote]

lol… The plight of the poor in America just a 100 year ago vs today is so incredibly different in that today’s poor look like Rockefellers compared, yet our style of governance is not really working out?

You’re straight blowing smoke right now. Someone who hasn’t read a history book in the last 20 years and lives pay check to pay check may eat up this nonsense all day, but it isn’t going to fly with those with perspective.

In short, this is bullshit.

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:
If there is ONE reason the USA has been the most successful nation in the history of the planet (by almost all measures) – yes, hooray for American exceptionalism – it’s because the concept of natural rights is enshrined in its founding document and practiced nationwide throughout its history.[/quote]

I’m a bit late to this party, but “practiced nationwide throughout its history” could use some clarification. I do remember, actually not remember but have read about, some very tumultuous times in the past where the US government, or at least voices within it, tried very hard to deny natural rights to certain segments of the population.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ continued

What was the rest of the world doing comparatively? Tell me. Tell me who outshined the US in recognizing natural rights? Who was more “exceptional?”[/quote]

You’re contention was in the absolute and I’m in agreement that the United States is the “exceptional” due to the commitment to the natural rights of people as contained in it’s founding documents.

I do think it’s important to point out that if we are to remain “exceptional” we need a continued commitment to our founding ideals recognizing the natural rights of at least our citizens (most of them). I’m not about to pronounce victory when the battle is still being waged.

148

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ continued

What was the rest of the world doing comparatively? Tell me. Tell me who outshined the US in recognizing natural rights? Who was more “exceptional?”[/quote]

You’re contention was in the absolute and I’m in agreement that the United States is the “exceptional” due to the commitment to the natural rights of people as contained in it’s founding documents.

I do think it’s important to point out that if we are to remain “exceptional” we need a continued commitment to our founding ideals recognizing the natural rights of at least our citizens (most of them). I’m not about to pronounce victory when the battle is still being waged. [/quote]

That is a perfectly reasonable stance. The issue is when that desire to continue to improve becomes a general air of “America sucks, and has always oppressed people, our system is broken and racist… Blah blah blah”. Which is the crux of every women’s study’s degree I’m coming to find out.

149

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

  1. Argued with an astonishing amount (to me) of intelligent people whom I have nothing but respect for that natural rights don’t exist, and rights are granted by government.

[/quote]

This is the only thing I have any inclination to reply to, because I’m not well informed enough on politics and world events to comment on the other stuff.

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. There is no right to “vote,” to pick your mate, own weapons, etc. These “rights” must be granted by something, whether it is popular approval, the government, or a divine power.

150

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again.

151

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that.

152

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument.

153

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]

Because the concept of natural rights is relatively new in the framework of human history (as far as I know, the first person to put forth the concept of natural rights was Aristotle, but none of the pre-socratics did so, at least none that I’ve studied). Therefore, this concept can reasonably be thought to not occur to all highly intelligent humans, who seem to be the one’s who come up with and reason about these kinds of things. In fact, there are many of these philosophers who come to the very conclusion that because there is no absolute truth (I disagree with this statement entirely) that there can be no “natural rights” because what one person thinks should be a natural right, another person thinks is absurd and should be allowed to no person.

Yes, humans are special. I believe so because I believe we are God’s creation, and made in his image. All “natural rights” that we have exist because he declared them as such. Any other rights granted to us outside of those were either extrapolated from them, or were thought up by humans. This is all my view and has no actual bearing on the argument.

If we go with idea that we have natural rights simply because we are special, then we of course have to answer the question of “what are those rights?” With that, we will receive billions to trillions of answers. If we throw out all the answers which are extrapolated from others, synonyms, etc, then we can narrow it down a bit. However, assuming we aren’t moral relativists, we will run into the question of “who is right?” This is where the necessity to know where we came from and why we are special comes in to play.

Mankind is not smart, disciplined, or small enough in number to come to an agreement on a single set of unified natural rights. I do not believe we will ever be that way. Therefore, the necessity for there to be an authority who dictates what those rights are. In a perfect world this authority would be an entirely benevolent, omniscient entity who would wish for the absolute best for every single soul, living or dead.

154

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]

Because the concept of natural rights is relatively new in the framework of human history (as far as I know, the first person to put forth the concept of natural rights was Aristotle, but none of the pre-socratics did so, at least none that I’ve studied). Therefore, this concept can reasonably be thought to not occur to all highly intelligent humans, who seem to be the one’s who come up with and reason about these kinds of things. In fact, there are many of these philosophers who come to the very conclusion that because there is no absolute truth (I disagree with this statement entirely) that there can be no “natural rights” because what one person thinks should be a natural right, another person thinks is absurd and should be allowed to no person.

Yes, humans are special. I believe so because I believe we are God’s creation, and made in his image. All “natural rights” that we have exist because he declared them as such. Any other rights granted to us outside of those were either extrapolated from them, or were thought up by humans. This is all my view and has no actual bearing on the argument.

If we go with idea that we have natural rights simply because we are special, then we of course have to answer the question of “what are those rights?” With that, we will receive billions to trillions of answers. If we throw out all the answers which are extrapolated from others, synonyms, etc, then we can narrow it down a bit. However, assuming we aren’t moral relativists, we will run into the question of “who is right?” This is where the necessity to know where we came from and why we are special comes in to play.

Mankind is not smart, disciplined, or small enough in number to come to an agreement on a single set of unified natural rights. I do not believe we will ever be that way. Therefore, the necessity for there to be an authority who dictates what those rights are. In a perfect world this authority would be an entirely benevolent, omniscient entity who would wish for the absolute best for every single soul, living or dead.
[/quote]

Those who would disagree due to some moral paradox with the idea that Natural Rights exist simply confuse what IS and what SHOULD BE. I’ve already stated what IS, and not once did I do so by conflating is and ought.

What IS the case is that we are special, regardless of how long it took us to figure that out. In that respect, we are still light years ahead of anything else on this planet.

It isn’t necessary to list or identify all of our Natural Rights. I think Madison made abundantly clear many years ago the folly of such an exercise. Natural Rights are simply rights given to us at birth by virtue of our unique status on this planet.

No such dictation of said rights is necessary either. They ALREADY EXIST and can only be “discovered” by some such authority. No such authority can decide for me that I do not have a life. They can take it from me, and therefore violate that which has been given to me, which is exactly what a right is. But they cannot say that something that has been given to me at birth is something that I do not have. It is logically impossible. They can only take from me what I already have.

Your argument that some an authoritarian figure of some sort can dictate natural rights to anyone reveals a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. I don’t know how else to describe an argument that is essentially stating the worry that someone may be able to, with some authority, declare that the life I have is not something that was given to me. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

155

As an atheist I have a hard time believing in “natural rights” and I belive they( the 18th century kind ) are a concept born out of the enlightment and the struggle betwen the burgeoise and the “old regime”. In essence the concept of “natural humans rights” are another way of saying that: “Hey if we are supposed to have a state, then that state ought not to do this and that towards the citizens.” And even though I dont believe there exist “rights” outside of the human mind and human society’s, I agree with the sentiment that if we are supposed to have a state, then that state should not be allowed to do whatever it pleases against the citizens. So in my view they are neither natural nor granted by a supernatural being, but they are sensible and necessary if one wants a civilized and good society. I guess it is perhaps a more pragmatic or utilitarian view of rights.

A problem I am not going into here is offcourse what should the state be restrained from doing? or in others words: In what way should the state be limited?

156

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]

Because the concept of natural rights is relatively new in the framework of human history (as far as I know, the first person to put forth the concept of natural rights was Aristotle, but none of the pre-socratics did so, at least none that I’ve studied). Therefore, this concept can reasonably be thought to not occur to all highly intelligent humans, who seem to be the one’s who come up with and reason about these kinds of things. In fact, there are many of these philosophers who come to the very conclusion that because there is no absolute truth (I disagree with this statement entirely) that there can be no “natural rights” because what one person thinks should be a natural right, another person thinks is absurd and should be allowed to no person.

Yes, humans are special. I believe so because I believe we are God’s creation, and made in his image. All “natural rights” that we have exist because he declared them as such. Any other rights granted to us outside of those were either extrapolated from them, or were thought up by humans. This is all my view and has no actual bearing on the argument.

If we go with idea that we have natural rights simply because we are special, then we of course have to answer the question of “what are those rights?” With that, we will receive billions to trillions of answers. If we throw out all the answers which are extrapolated from others, synonyms, etc, then we can narrow it down a bit. However, assuming we aren’t moral relativists, we will run into the question of “who is right?” This is where the necessity to know where we came from and why we are special comes in to play.

Mankind is not smart, disciplined, or small enough in number to come to an agreement on a single set of unified natural rights. I do not believe we will ever be that way. Therefore, the necessity for there to be an authority who dictates what those rights are. In a perfect world this authority would be an entirely benevolent, omniscient entity who would wish for the absolute best for every single soul, living or dead.
[/quote]

Those who would disagree due to some moral paradox with the idea that Natural Rights exist simply confuse what IS and what SHOULD BE. I’ve already stated what IS, and not once did I do so by conflating is and ought.

What IS the case is that we are special, regardless of how long it took us to figure that out. In that respect, we are still light years ahead of anything else on this planet.

It isn’t necessary to list or identify all of our Natural Rights. I think Madison made abundantly clear many years ago the folly of such an exercise. Natural Rights are simply rights given to us at birth by virtue of our unique status on this planet.

No such dictation of said rights is necessary either. They ALREADY EXIST and can only be “discovered” by some such authority. No such authority can decide for me that I do not have a life. They can take it from me, and therefore violate that which has been given to me, which is exactly what a right is. But they cannot say that something that has been given to me at birth is something that I do not have. It is logically impossible. They can only take from me what I already have.

Your argument that some an authoritarian figure of some sort can dictate natural rights to anyone reveals a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. I don’t know how else to describe an argument that is essentially stating the worry that someone may be able to, with some authority, declare that the life I have is not something that was given to me. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.[/quote]

Yes, it is necessary to identify our natural rights, if they truly exist. Otherwise we are incapable of exercising them accurately. For instance, assume we were unaware of our right to free speech as granted to us by the Constitution of the U.S. The government begins to do some unsavory things, but we think that because they are the authority, we have no right to speak against it. Thus we NEED to know what our natural rights our, that way we can make a point to establish rules and such to not infringe upon those rights.

After reading your reasoning, I think I can agree with you that we at the very least have a right to life by virtue of being born. However, I think it fairly safe to say that ALL living things have a right to life by virtue of being born. Perhaps it is only living, thinking things (eg, animals, or possible insects).

I have not argued that a human authority figure can decide what our natural rights are or aren’t. That falls in line with the same view point I’m arguing against.

How we came to be special is very important in this discussion. If it was by virtue of being created by something (purposefully created, like by a supernatural entity) or by cosmic chance+natural selection will determine how we go about defining our “natural rights.”

Didn’t realize that you conceded my entire argument with this one sentence. That’s all I’m arguing. That the only way we have natural rights is if the thing that created us has given them to us. If we simply came to be by chance, then our supposed natural rights are the same natural rights that every living thing has, because we are no more unique than anything else in the animal kingdom.
Honestly, I thought I would be done with these kinds of discussion once I was out of college.

157

Here’s an interesting article on the “goals” of Communism to dismantle the freedoms in America. The article was written in 1968… Guess how many goals have been achieved?

http://disruptthenarrative.com/2013/01/08/45-communist-goals-by-dr-cleon-skousen-1958/

158

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an interesting article on the “goals” of Communism to dismantle the freedoms in America. The article was written in 1968… Guess how many goals have been achieved?

http://disruptthenarrative.com/2013/01/08/45-communist-goals-by-dr-cleon-skousen-1958/

[/quote]

edit: not partaking in this discussion.

159

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.

160

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.[/quote]

Your argument would be analogous if Neighbor A was a human and Neighbor B was some other sort of animal.