This has nothing to do with whether or not something is a "right".

I'll remind you, the initial statement you made was "Rights are a fundamental consequence of human nature.", but you're now saying somewhat ahistorical things about slave labor and market economies. Even if what you were saying was accurate, is has nothing to do with how we define rights.

You can (and people do) invent and define rights all the time. People have also tried to legislate that pi=3. Almost daily, legislatures try to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand.

That doesn't make them rights, and it never works.

What makes something a right, then? You keep talking around it, and saying things which you believe are rights, but have never said explicitly what makes your set of rights somehow objectively rights where others aren't.

I did say, multiple times in this thread.

"The law of supply and demand" isn't a right.

> You can (and people do) invent and define rights all the time.[...] That doesn't make them rights

Huh?

"The law of supply and demand" isn't a right.

I didn't say it was. Neither did I say that pi=3 is a right. Please read what I wrote again.

Yes, I and others have asked you to list out what the natural rights are, and you've waxed about free markets. I have no idea what you're trying to say, since you seem to be contradicting yourself. Hence my request for clarification. You're doing such a bad job of communicating here that the only reason I don't think I'm being trolled is that I know you wouldn't do that.

My best guess is that you're trying to make the point that market economies are natural and that the rights we have under them are therefore natural, but this is basically an argument from status quo and it goes directly against what you said elsewhere about healthcare being a right due to government regulations.

And from that you seem to be saying that healthcare is a right due to government regulation, but here you're saying that government decree doesn't make something a right. So like I said, I'm lost.