[beavus]

Great points. I agree that we have to go back to the ABC's, although putting it that way makes it sound easy. When I say that people who use the word "rights" don't know what they are talking about, I don't mean to be insulting. The answer may be simple, but simple answers are not always easily discovered.

our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge

This is the most fascinating point. It seems like it could be simplified though. If I understand correctly, it means that rights only apply to things that can idealize values--i.e. that can abstract out the essential concepts of those things they value.

This is actually more than one quality. A thing must be able to conceptualize, and hold values.

Although it seems to describe essentually unique human qualities, when it comes to rights, it still seems lacking. For example, imagine you (who can conceptualize and hold values) are living alone on an uncharted desert island. What are your rights? The question seems incongruous in such a situation.

[hocndoc]

If I am alone, there is no one to infringe my rights. They are moot, since rights are only relevent as negatives: rights may not be infringed.
Dr. Spitzer calls this the Silver Rule: First do no harm or Non-maleficence.