[Rytwyng]

Humans typically share a common set of desires... posession of property, life...

Agreed.

Given a group of humans with mutual desires -- continued living and property posession -- they could potentially form an agreement whereby no one will kill or steal from another. To make the agreement have merit, punishments for violating the agreement are determined

Once again, agreed. This is called the "Social Contract".

Should the majoirty decide that a minority no longer has a "right" to life and property it can be removed

This is the fatal flaw in the Social Contract: It can be rewritten at will by the changeable preferences of humans. You don't really have any "unalienable rights" unless there's an authority beyond mankind, that says so. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", remember that?

[Dimensio]

This is the fatal flaw in the Social Contract: It can be rewritten at will by the changeable preferences of humans. You don't really have any "unalienable rights" unless there's an authority beyond mankind, that says so. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", remember that?

Yes, I do. "Endowed by their Creator" is an unsupported assertion until evidence for this Creator is given (along with a sufficient definition -- presumably the evidence will support the definition as well). Yes, the "Social Contract" can be rewritten and no one has "unalienable rights" unless defined through some other authority that has control over such matters but the consequences of not having a higher authority, good or bad, do not affect reality. .

I'm not arguing that the Social Contract is the best method, but I've not seen evidence that anything beyond it exists. My assertion is simply that it is how societies govern themselves and that's how humans have functioned for thousands of years.