What’s wrong with one liners ?
That is true. The only natural right is the right of the strongest.
Might makes right is a self-refuting theory for libertarians
Possibly, but the burden of proof is on the libertarians to prove that natural rights exist.
Natural selection does not necessarily mean right of the strongest.
Unless one proves that it is more advantageous for the strongest not to use violence, but to instead cooperate in society via the division of labor.
As an evolutionist I believe the concept of rights is a construct of our brains. The concept has obviously been benefitial to the survival of our species, but that doesn’t make the rights themselves real.
Evolutionary theory doesn’t reject natural rights. Evolutionary theory is fully embedded in natural rights.
It still makes them tools, however, & utilizing those tools makes them quite real via the consequences of following them.
Nothing is real. Everything is just ‘concepts’ in ‘our’ brains.
The burden of proof is on any proponent of aggression who wishes to interrupt any peaceful activity, regardless of natural rights to provide a compelling rationale for their action. Evolutionary theory is neutral to rights. It can explain their origin but if you think it thereby dislocates them, you’d need to demonstrate their mutual exclusivity. Such has not been done.
In theory, the burden of proof is on any proponent of positive obligation, whether it is the aggressor trying to legitimize violence or the victim arguing his case for obligatory non-aggression.
That’s true.
And in practice since it is the aggressor who wishes to supercede the claim of innocent individuals contracting, the burden of proof rests with them. And should it have occasioned they somehow came to illicitly possess property again the burden of proof is on them as to why it is OK for them to aggress to acquire property but not for everyone else. Consistency, like salt to a slug in the state’s case.
Refraining from interfering is not a positive obligation by any stretch.
Why would one have to be an “evolutionist” to have this obvious insigth in the nature of “rights”?
“Rights” are a social/mental construct that allows - to gether with other institutionalized ideas, assumptions and rules - to solve certain problems between problem. It works sufficient in some countries. But that doesn’t mean that this is the only way to go or that this idea has to be implemented globally.