A free market is a conceptual economical notion, most markets are not free, not because they have restrictions implied on them but because they function because of asymmetrical information.

A totally free market would also be a place where all information is freely and readily available, this is of course not the case from the health care market to the auto repair business right up to stock market trading (though here it comes very close).

However without asymmetrical information there wouldn't be large variance for large profit potentials.

>> ^Farhad2000:
A free market is a conceptual economical notion, most markets are not free, not because they have restrictions implied on them but because they function because of asymmetrical information.
A totally free market would also be a place where all information is freely and readily available, this is of course not the case from the health care market to the auto repair business right up to stock market trading (though here it comes very close).
However without asymmetrical information there wouldn't be large variance for large profit potentials.

By informational asymmetry, you mean one party (either the buyer or seller) has information that the other does not possess?

That is a good point you bring up. I plan on writing several more sections arguing for the economic basis of a free market and I'll be sure to discuss informational asymmetry--thanks for pointing that out. I decided to start with the philosophical underpinnings because they tend to come up later when going through the economic analysis.

A totally free market is only theoreticly possible. There are too many variables in real life. Even capitalism hinders the free market to a certain degree, as there will eventually be large corporations or persons controlling important aspects of every market. The concept of free markets, in any society, has to be nurtured by governments through legislation and interference, where appropriate, to work.

One thing about free markets as a concept, is that they only account and solve for basic economic problem of efficient allocation of finite resources.

It doesn't account for happiness, social good, and environmental externalities. My rabid pro-free market friend would argue that the existence of the free market would mean that there would be a demand for clean air and the market would respond with supply, however that is a fallacy because why would the market respond to something that is less profitable without needed government subsidization.

This is seen in the pharmaceutical industry whose goal is often to not cure the problem but to create a marketable product that will allow people to live with a sickness long enough to derive a profit from it. The free market seeks profit not the social good.

Keep the ideas coming--I plan to write several sections covering the economic theory, historical basis, and practical applications.

Farhad2000, happiness, charity, and pollution are all valid concerns with a market (especially the later two)--but I think they can be satisfactorily addressed. Happiness is bordering on the philosophy of life, and the main requirement with respect to economics is that the system should not impede on any attempt at happiness--not necessarily provide or describe how to achieve it, as that is the subject of a different philosophy. As far as pollution goes, I would disagree with your friend, because it is not the role of the market to resolve "neighbor effects" that is the role of the government. Neighbor effects are, essentially, a form of vandalism. Thus the issue of clean air and clean drinking water are issues that need to be addressed by a government (via a legal system, or via measures such as an effluent tax). When you talk of the pharmaceutical industry, are you taking into account the concept of "the invisible hand" ? While it is the pharmaceutical industry's goal to become profitable--they do this by developing successful products, that is, products which cure, prevent, or treat diseases. It is this action of "the invisible hand" which leads a company acting in its self-interest to act in the interest of the general good.

Rasch187, what specific types of interference (that you deem necessary) would you like to see me address? Also, it seems if you you are implying that theory is unhelpful unless it can accurately predict and model reality--and I agree. However I do think free markets exist. If you take the market as its simplest and smallest manifestation--such as the exchange between two neighbors--do you not consider that an empirical data point?

Yes but you see you also come down into say that governments showed actively regulate and be active within a market system which is not exactly what free marketers essentially believe, any sort of government interventionism be it regulation or laws impede the free market for them which they believe can self regulate.

I don't believe a free market can actually take into account anything besides the absolute drive to profit, because its conceptual and abstract much in the same way a corporation is legally seen as a entity of its own.

Personally I think the mix of a free and regulated market is the best for me, but its clearly seen that free markets are far more powerful when left to their own devices, you don't really see the government or the consumers lobby for better environmental standards or even quality control.

This is where informational asymmetry comes into play the inability of a consumer to judge effectively that brand A that is more expensive is better in terms of safety over brand B that is far cheaper but more dangerous. We as consumers have become part of the free market, only our drive is not for profit when consumers but to buy the most at the cheapest price. Wallmart prove this for me.

This is not of course factoring in ostentatious consumption and high tech gadgetry that follows more along the lines of the supply and demand of highly fashionable items.

The inteference I mentioned would have to come from either legislation (a market wouldn't function at all without legislation) or government/federal appointed councils. And if you're trying to use the example of the two neighbours (which was used by that famous economist I can't remember the name of) as an example of a free market...thank you, try again.

>> ^rasch187:
The inteference I mentioned would have to come from either legislation (a market wouldn't function at all without legislation) or government/federal appointed councils. And if you're trying to use the example of the two neighbours (which was used by that famous economist I can't remember the name of) as an example of a free market...thank you, try again.


It seems as if you are trying to mix political and economic situations. A market is what I defined it in section I. How could trade between two people fail to function without legislation? Especially if there are only two people.

It is almost as if you are saying that a market would not function if everyone was murdering or robbing each other--to which I agree, but that has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with law enforcement from the government.

A few suggestions:

1. A=A is very Rand, it makes you sound like a cult member, your argument would be stronger without it.
   
   
2. Remember just about everything with DNA is "a living being", your argument asserts their right to life, be a little more specific.
   
   
3. You don't specify why "right to life" => freedom from coercion, you state it as axiomatic, while claiming it is a consequence of your one axiom, it's unclear how you got there.
   
   
4. You talk about trade, and therefor property, as though they exist independent of human belief, they have no objective reality. If you mean to add these abstract concepts as rights axiomatically you should say so. If you have an argument which shows that they follow from your stated axiom then state it.

>> ^dgandhi:
A few suggestions:

1. A=A is very Rand, it makes you sound like a cult member, your argument would be stronger without it.
   
2. Remember just about everything with DNA is "a living being", your argument asserts their right to life, be a little more specific.
   
3. You don't specify why "right to life" => freedom from coercion, you state it as axiomatic, while claiming it is a consequence of your one axiom, it's unclear how you got there.
   
4. You talk about trade, and therefor property, as though they exist independent of human belief, they have no objective reality. If you mean to add these abstract concepts as rights axiomatically you should say so. If you have an argument which shows that they follow from your stated axiom then state it.

1. A=A is a common starting point in mathematical and logical proofs. Rand is a source of inspiration, but by no means do I take her words as gospel, nor do I agree with all of her views. Without starting at a given, A=A, I do not see how it would be possible to derive "the right to life."

2. This is a valid point, but it is a topic for another discussion. I am only attempting to derive a philosophical basis for the free market, not animal or general human rights.

3. I can see how this might be a leap, I re-worded it to try to establish a better transition.

4. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "You talk about trade, and therefor property, as though they exist independent of human belief, they have no objective reality. " can you point out where in the derivation this occurs?

^

1. X = X is mathematically equivalent, and does not conjure up images of absurdist objectivist utopias. I am suggesting a change in nomenclature, not arguing the validity of equivalence as an axiom.
   
   
2. You use a very broad argument to make a very specific point. Your real argument is hard, maybe impossible, to state in a concrete, non-self contradictory way. This weakens your argument substantially. If your argument, as stated, requires that we have no right to kill yeast, then you have a serious problem.
   
   
3. It still seems that you start with a phrase "Right to life" declare it axiomatic, and then, arbitrarily define it in a way which implicitly declares a number of new axioms. If you want to stick with your single axiom then you need to state, not that "Right to life" means X,Y,Z but show HOW it means these things. If you don't/can't show How they are derived, if you write it like a definition, then you are not deriving, but stating extra axioms non-explicitly. Not stating your axioms explicitly makes it look like you are hiding something.
   
   
4. see my comments on blog post I

^dghandi

I think I see what your talking about now. here is the revised logic:

1. A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in social interaction.
2. living beings are living beings
3. living beings are alive, or have life
4. life persists only with self-sustained, self-generated action
5. social interaction is only possible if living beings exist
6. living beings only exist if they have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action
7. social interaction is only possible if living beings have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action
8. the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, in a social context, is what I term "the right to life"
9. the only way to violate a freedom of action is through physical force (compulsion, coercion)
10. the right to life is the freedom to persist in self-sustained, self-generated action in the absence of physical force (compulsion, coercion)

previously I was skipping from 4 to 8, and that was definitely invalid. thanks for catching that! I believe this clears up #2 and #3 on your list. I also went ahead and changed #1 as you recommended.

as far as #4, you are correct that I need to define property rights in order to jump from the right to life to the right to trade. I will add that in there

Not to sound like a broken record, but it falls apart completely after 8 (we've talked about this before).

... why have a point that just defines a term you like (8)? Its very transparent that you're just trying to build up the a little mount to plop #10 on.

... why give a definition of what violates individual freedom at all if its going to be ridiculously widely interpretable? Your just cheating to get to #10 again. Maybe take a look at what the U.S. Constitution did and get back to #9.

You're playing too specific with this whole 'right to life' thing,... really, just take a step away from that and come back to it if you need it later. You're making this more complicated than it need be.

>> ^bamdrew:
Not to sound like a broken record, but it falls apart completely after 8 (we've talked about this before).
... why have a point that just defines a term you like (8)? Its very transparent that you're just trying to build up the a little mount to plop #10 on.
... why give a definition of what violates individual freedom at all if its going to be ridiculously widely interpretable? Your just cheating to get to #10 again. Maybe take a look at what the U.S. Constitution did and get back to #9.
You're playing too specific with this whole 'right to life' thing,... really, just take a step away from that and come back to it if you need it later. You're making this more complicated than it need be.


my use of "the right to life" in #8 is a label, Labels are arbitrary and do not affect the logic. I could have defined #8 as X, Y, Z, or any other label, but "the right to life" is the one I chose.

How can you disprove #9? There is no other way to violate someones freedom other than using physical force. If this is not true, please provide a counterexample.

>> ^imstellar28:
8. the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, in a social context, is what I term "the right to life"

Let us consider a person named Allen, Allen is my slave, he works my field, I feed/house/clothe him, since he is my property, at my whim I have the right to dispose of him through sale, or destruction.

Since Allen works, and that work helps to sustain him, and since he moves of his own accord, though he does follow my commands, he seems it this situation to be in full possession with your "right to life". His "right" does not take precedence over my right to dispose of my property as I see fit, since his "right" is a passive right. If I destroy my property called Allen, then Allen can not live, but I am not required to give Allen the right to my property so that he may live.

I construct this hypothetical because it seems that what you have labeled "the right to life" is not the same "right" which you use in other arguments. While I agree that you have derived a statement that seems to mean "living things must live or they will die", this does not seem to be a "right" in either the passive or active sense.

^dgandhi

Your hypothetical is based on a false premise:

he seems it this situation to be in full possession with your "right to life"

You are granting Allen the right to life, yet you are marking him a slave. How did Allen become the property of the slaveowner? If Allen has the right to life, the only way he could become a slave is if voluntarily signed a contract to become the property of the slaveowner, that is, he would have to willingly sell himself into slavery--with the terms that as property he could be destroyed at any moment. Is this your assumption? If so, there is no contention. If not, your hypothetical is invalid.

You had valid concerns before but I believe I have resolved them, do you agree?

>> ^imstellar28: Your hypothetical is based on a false premise:

I see no place where, in point 1-8 a living being can not be property, if they are, 9-10 don't follow from 8, and your argument breaks down.

Allen meets every stage 1-8 like this:

1. He, as property, has a socially defined freedom of action, which, like all freedoms, is not limitless.
   
2. He is alive
   
3. see 2
   
4. He eats
   
5. He interacts with me, as my property, since he is alive
   
6. He lives by eating, sleeping etc, no problem here.
   
7. see 5
   
8. see 5

He does not meet #9, but in his case 9 does not follow from 8.

Since you say that point 8 is a definition, and it seems to mean "Alive,Conscious and interacting in a social context" I submit that Allen does all of these things, his status a property does not seem to be at issue.

I agree that it SHOULD be at issue, but your argument, as stated, does not make issue of it at all, it strikes me that you must be leaving something out.

It also strikes me, that having asserted validity of the points for this example in order that 3,7,and 8 seem redundant of previous points. I presume that you intended them to be different in meaningful ways, but as they are written I can't figure out what that difference would be.

I agree that you have addressed my issues #1 and #3, but in addressing #3 you have raised other issues. If you manage to rectify all the issues with your answer to #3, then #2 will be dealt with as a byproduct. #4 we can talk about on post I, since we are already dealing with it there.

^There is nothing that forbids a living being from becoming property, if that is the best way for them to sustain their life, they are free to chose this route. What I am saying is that they must make the conscious choice to do so. You start off with the assumption that Allen is property but you do nothing to establish or prove why this is valid.

It might be easier if you just paste the list from 1-10 and say next to each whether you think each step is valid, and if not explain why or offer a way to fix it?
1. a living being is a living being
2. a living being is alive only as long as it sustains its life
3. living beings sustain life through self-generated action
4. social interaction only exists through living beings
5. social interaction only exists if living beings sustain themselves
6. a "right" defines and sanctions a living beings freedom of action in social interaction
7. living beings, in a social context, have the right to sustain themselves
8. rights can, ultimately, only be violated with physical force, compulsion, or coercion
9. living beings, in a social context, have the right to sustain themselves through self-generated action, free of physical force, compulsion, or coercion.
10. #9 is the right to life.

Isn't the philosophical basis of socialism also the "right to life"?

The right to live in a society that can supply its population with sufficient food, clothing, and shelter? A society with sufficient employment, healthcare, education, and retirment for all of its members?

And if they are both based on the human being's fundamental "right to life" which of the two is more noble?

The one that looks out for all of its members, or the one that caters mostly to the few who own the most "capital"?

^rougy:
Isn't the philosophical basis of socialism also the "right to life"?
The right to live in a society that can supply its population with sufficient food, clothing, and shelter? A society with sufficient employment, healthcare, education, and retirment for all of its members?
And if they are both based on the human being's fundamental "right to life" which of the two is more noble?
The one that looks out for all of its members, or the one that caters mostly to the few who own the most "capital"?

yes, but they are defining "the right to life" differently than I am. There are basically four conclusions one can arrive at:

1. individuals have no right to life
2. individuals have the right to sustain their own life, only
3. individuals have the right for others to sustain their life for them, only
4. individuals have the right to sustain their own life, and have others sustain their life for them.

I am defining it as #2, whereas socialists define it as #3 or #4. If my derivation is correct, it disproves #1 and #3. To go from what I derived to #4 would take additional proof--but I believe it is impossible as the latter part of #4 appears to contradict the former. As such, I have never seen any socialist literature derive #4, or even attempt to do so.

It should be noted that "the right to life" as I define it, is compatible with helping others, as people who are free to sustain their own life, are also free to choose to sustain the lives of others. However, if you define it as the socialists, you necessarily have to sustain the lives of others not out of choice, but of obligation, which I find to be considerably less noble.

>> ^imstellar28:
It should be noted that "the right to life" as I define it, is compatible with helping others, as people who are free to sustain their own life, are also free to choose to sustain the lives of others. However, if you define it as the socialists, you necessarily have to sustain the lives of others not out of choice, but of obligation, which I find to be considerably less noble.


Maybe.

One may be "obliged" to stop at a four-way intersection, or one can be noble and just blow right through, since it undermines his fundamental "right to life."

It would seem to me that adhering to a set of rules that either leads to, or encourages, a stronger, safer society would be far and away more noble than to belly-ache about being "obliged" to follow them.

Tell me...if one of the people in your example scenario has nothing to trade, does he lose his "right to life"?

(good post, by the way)

>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
It should be noted that "the right to life" as I define it, is compatible with helping others, as people who are free to sustain their own life, are also free to choose to sustain the lives of others. However, if you define it as the socialists, you necessarily have to sustain the lives of others not out of choice, but of obligation, which I find to be considerably less noble.

Maybe.
One may be "obliged" to stop at a four-way intersection, or one can be noble and just blow right through, since it undermines his fundamental "right to life."
It would seem to me that adhering to a set of rules that either leads to, or encourages, a stronger, safer society would be far and away more noble than to belly-ache about being "obliged" to follow them.
Tell me...if one of the people in your example scenario has nothing to trade, does he lose his "right to life"?
(good post, by the way)


In a scenario where an individual has nothing (tangible) to trade, he would still possess the right to life so long as he exists in a social context. Holding the right to life, and thus the right to property, he has the freedom to claim ownership over items not in yet under the ownership of other individuals, and to utilize those items to sustain his life. If no such items are readily available, he is free to exchange his services (labor) or information (ideas) directly for food and water, or intermediate forms such as currency. The latter is the route most individuals take to sustain their lives.

As far as living beings that do not exist in a social context: consider a shipwrecked sailor who lands on a deserted island. He does not necessarily have the right to life because no social interaction is possible, but at the same time he does not need any rights because there are no other individuals present to violate his freedom of action.

Social interaction exists only through living beings.

That's not strictly true. A debate on the merits of that statement, though, would probably be way beyond the context of this post.


To pursue the property which enables one to sustain their life
...
The freedom of action to consume, utilize, or dispense of objects requires ownership.

Ownership and a concept of property is not a necessary condition of sustaining life. That is self-evident. Every organism on the planet is capable of sustaining its life without claiming a right to property. Even among highly social species, there is no need for ownership. They eat, drink, and breathe as they need.


the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."
...
"the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action.

Unless I misunderstand, you are claiming that self-determination is a necessary condition for "right to life", since it is not part of your definition. But you give no reason why it is necessary. And I think that is the point of dghandi's hypothetical slave situation. Allen meets all of the criteria for his "right to life", i.e., self-generated self-sustaining action. Being a slave, though, he obviously does not possess self-determination.


Individuals are motivated to engage in voluntary trade and cooperation because each believes they gain the ability to better sustain their life in comparison to the alternative. This simple fact assures that trade will occur if and only if all parties perceive a benefit from the terms of exchange.

That is simply not true. If Steve has successfully claimed ownership of the only source of fresh water, then everyone else is compelled to trade with Steve.

^jonny,

I feel as though my post is extremely explicit and clear, as I was very methodical about going from one step to the next. With all respect, I am unsure as to how you are drawing the conclusions you do.

1. If you look at the definition of "social" how could social interaction be possible if both parties aren't alive?
2. I am talking in a social context, as I stated several times. Rights mean nothing outside of a social context. I am not talking about what is physically possible, I am talking about what is morally possible. You cannot morally (i.e. without violating another's rights) consume food that you do not own.
3. Self-determination, as defined in wikipedia, is the "as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion" which is essentially the same thing as the right to life. Thus, it cannot be a condition for the right to life as they are one in the same. If you think a person forced into slavery has the right to life, you have misunderstood my post.
4. Imagine 5 people are stranded in the desert and steve is the only one who brought water. He has one gallon. Yes, people are compelled to trade with him-but how does that make it involuntary? Steve isn't using physical force, compulsion, or coercion to make them trade with him. You are confusing what compelling means.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. If you look at the definition of "social" how could social interaction be possible if both parties aren't alive?

As I wrote, that discussion is way beyond the scope of this post. It depends on what you mean by "social interaction". A chess match between Deep Blue and Kasparov comes to mind as a possible counter-example. I'll accept your asseration, though, but want to point out that you are (unnecessarily?) including all living things, not just humans. And I think it confounds other assertions, like the right to property and self-determination. If the point here is to discuss human interaction, then you really don't need to mention "living things" and a definition of social interaction.


2. I am talking in a social context, as I stated several times. Rights mean nothing outside of a social context.

That depends on who you're talking to. I personally don't believe in absolute morality, but some people do. And in their world view, rights do exist outside of human definition.


I am not talking about what is physically possible, I am talking about what is morally possible. You cannot morally (i.e. without violating another's rights) consume food that you do not own.

That assumes ownership of everything. If I walk in a forest, and eat some berries that belong to no one, whose rights have violated?

Also, the very notion of ownership implies the right to own property, which you state is a corollary of the right to life. It cannot simultaneously be a necessary condition and a consequence of the right to life. Which is it?

And this also gets back to the problem of talking about generic social interactions between living things. Clearly a chimpanzee is a member of a social group and has social interactions with others in its own group and members of other groups. But chimpanzees require no concept of ownership to survive, i.e., to exercise their right to life.


3. Self-determination, as defined in wikipedia, is the "as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion" which is essentially the same thing as the right to life. Thus, it cannot be a condition for the right to life as they are one in the same. If you think a person forced into slavery has the right to life, you have misunderstood my post.

Apparently so. But you define the right to life in the third paragraph of your post:

This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."

It mentions nothing about self-determination, but then you later state,

for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action.

So, you've noted that self-determination is a necessary condition for the right to life (as opposed to part of its definition) without giving any reason. Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.


4. Imagine 5 people are stranded in the desert and steve is the only one who brought water. He has one gallon. Yes, people are compelled to trade with him-but how does that make it involuntary? Steve isn't using physical force, compulsion, or coercion to make them trade with him. You are confusing what compelling means.

He's not using coercion? Are you serious? Trade me your big sun hat for some water, or you're going to die! That's not coercion?? The threat of dying is usually pretty compelling for me. That steve will not be the direct agent of my death is irrelevant - I'm still going to die if I don't give him my hat for some water.

^jonny

1. You are correct that this is another debate. My only intention was to discuss this in humans as I am talking about economics. Robots might very well be able to interact with human beings--but if they could, I argue, you would have to call them "alive."

2. What is your definition of a "right" ? You are free to define it in any way you want--words are just labels. I made my argument by assuming the meaning of words--all of which I defined. As defined, my argument is irrefutable, and will continue to be so until someone explicitly refutes it. Challenging my definitions of "right" or "morality" is not valid because I explicitly defined each in the proof. You are using your definitions to try to apply to my logic and that is not possible.

3. Forget self-determination, it means the same thing as the right to life. It is not a precondition. Read the proof again--I show explicitly how I arrive from this:
"This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life.""
to this:
"for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action."

All I am doing is substituting words which have identical meaning. The first concept is more abstract so I am merely putting it into common language.

Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.
This is false--I just disproved it above. Again you are confusing "convince" with "coerce". Coercion and compulsion cannot be executed without physical force. That is--physical force on you or someone else.

4. You are severely mixed up. Steve is not threatening anyone. If he was, why would he give them any water, why wouldn't he just take the sun hat? He is exercising his right to own property...nobody is entitled to his water if he doesn't want to trade it. These ideas are radical, I understand that. You are twisting up what steve "should do" and what steve "has the right to do". Yes, if steve is a decent human being who doesn't want to see 5 people die in the desert he should share his water. That is another question altogether. Steve has no obligation to share it, if he chooses not to. He violates nobody's rights by going off to himself in a corner, and drinking the whole jug. How could he if he owns the jug of water?

In effect, you are saying that steve has the obligation to sustain everyone else. This is a serious statement and you need to prove it.

Your sense of "what someone should do" is severely clouding your ability to digest this information--and I understand why. This idea seems to flies in the face of probably everything you've ever heard--just as it did me when I first heard it. However, what someone "should do" and what someone has the "right to do" are two independent things. What someone "should do" is defined by culture, what someone "has the right to do" arises from the fact that they are a living being with the right to life--as I demonstrated above.

Societal values are different than moral values. Morality, here, is the binary label on whether you violate another's rights. If you violate another's rights, you are acting immorally. If you do not, you are acting morally. Thus, steve can choose not to share his water, and be acting "morally" (as defined above)--although upon returning will probably be regarded as a pretty wicked individual (by cultural or societal standards). Societal values change in time which is why they should never be used as a moral guide. If we did, we would think slavery was "moral" 300 years ago just because society did not condemn it. It is important to distinguish between the two because both play important roles.

Without the "right to life" society is not possible, all you would have would be a mass of violence and meaningful interaction would be few and far between. Societal values are also important as they help hold a society together. The reason this probably seems foreign as our current philosophy emphasis societal values but says little to nothing of actual human rights. It tries to muddle the two together and that is just false--its what the bible does, its what the bill of rights does, it whats the UN's "human declaration of human rights" does. None of these mention anything about "the right to life" except perhaps in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" but even here it is not emphasized. I have shown above that human beings have certain inalienable rights (right to life, right to property), that humans must adhere to through all time, and in all countries, societies, cultures, and geographical regions.

Does that help any?

Overall, do you think my proof is valid?