David Musick wrote:
> Thank you, Michael for your well-written reply. I agree with you that the
> concept of property rights can be derived quite easily from the goals of
> maximizing the survivability and happiness of the human species.
> However, just because a concept or theory is based on thousands of years of
> accurate observation, it doesn't make it any less a human mental construct.
> I'm not saying that such theories and concepts are not extremely useful; I'm
> only reminding us that humans formulated these concepts and theories
> originally (they were not some "absolute truth" given to us from God).
This is your primary error that you continue to espouse. I make no claims for any god. You agree with my statements that Natural Law is well established as a codification of thousands of years of accurate observations of what is beneficial for humanity, yet you refuse to acknowledge that these observations are experimental and experiential confirmation that Natural Law as a concept is an inherent substrate of the reality of this universe, or you are denying that this universe is real. Either assumption on your part is irrational and illogical. If you continue to insist on these assumptions, please prove your point as I have done.