All life has Unalienable Rights

My opponent failed to see the argument Takac was making relative to Jefferson's claim. And for good reason, perhaps, I was not clear on that point. Jefferson claimed these Unalienable Rights only pertain to "all men," where Takac argues that these Rights apply to all living-systems (from a single living cell, to humans, to tribes, to corporations, to governments, etc.). A few examples will demonstrate the scope of these Rights, the Unalienable nature of them, and the dynamic reflection of the Constructal Law within them. In going forward, the term "Happiness" is a metaphor for positive-feedback. In the plant kingdom, a tree example illustrates the Unalienable nature of these Rights, and the logic of this example may be used as a template for all forms of living-systems. A tree sprout begins its life cycle in the pollination/fertilization stage, with the formation of a seed that has the Right to "Life" under favorable soil conditions. To maintain this "Life," the sprout requires the freedom ("Liberty") to grow and "pursue" bio-positive feedback ("Happiness") in the form of the nourishment it receives from light. If one were to place a sheet of transparent glass on the soil, thereby taking away the sprout's freedom ("Liberty") to grow, the sprout would die. In addition, if one were to place an opaque box over the sprout, thereby preserving its "Liberty" to grow but cutting it off from its source of light, bio-positive feedback ("Happiness"), it would die. A human ("Life") has the freedom ("Liberty") in "the pursuit" of food and water (bio-positive feedback for survival, "Happiness"). Lock the human in a prison cell, taking his freedom ("Liberty") away from "the pursuit of" food and water outside his cell. In a short time he will die. Give the human freedom but place him in the middle of a desert without any food or water hundreds of miles away, taking away his Right to "pursue" positive-feedback for survival ("Happiness"). In a short time he will die. A corporation is created by a charter that gives it the Right to corporate "Life." The free market provides the corporation with "Liberty," as it "pursues Happiness" through such objectives as profits and growth. When corporate "Liberty" is obstructed via over-regulation, high taxes, controlled markets, etc., its "pursuit of Happiness" is hindered. The results of this hindrance may be bankruptcy, going out of business, a move to a more profitable location, or a result to engaging in crony-capitalism for survival. In the above examples, by their "Unalienable" nature, indicates these Rights cannot be taken away. Notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another. Without "Life," one cannot enjoy "Liberty" or "pursue Happiness." Without "Liberty," one cannot "pursue Happiness," and as this "pursuit" often overlaps with the "pursuit of" survival, one is unable to continue "Life." Without the "pursuit of Happiness"/survival, one cannot continue "Life" or enjoy "Liberty." Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum. The positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive feedback), while the negative end is a position of death, tyranny, and distress (negative feedback). Therefore, these Rights are Unalienable for all life. Take anyone away, in an absolute context, there is death, for death has no Unalienable Rights, only life has them. Within the Constructal Law dynamics, Unalienable Rights maintains a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve "Life." At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase "Liberty," with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during "the pursuit of" an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of "Happiness," fulfillment, pleasure, and anything to do with positive feedback. Our Unalienable Rights help us to thrive as we operate within the matrix of the Laws of Nature and interact with all living-systems throughout the continuum of life. A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging the flow of "Life" to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the "pursuit of" its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive feedback ("Happiness" aka evolution). From the above examples, I hope my opponent could see the point I was trying to make regarding survival being a positive-feedback event, in addition, survival is a prerequisite for the pursuit of any other objective resulting in additional positive-feedback. My opponent mentioned "natural law," which is the metaphysical side of our Unalienable Rights having a rich philosophical historical record of symmetry, in ideology, among many scholars throughout the ages. The focus of this debate is the symmetry of an observable pattern persisting throughout life, call it Unalienable Rights (Jefferson), primitives (Takac), Constructal Law (Bejan). Bejan expanse the generalization of this pattern to include inanimate flow. Clearly, through the observation of our senses, there is a pattern having its roots in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Why not? Life is a flow system, and life is a product of the Laws of Nature. Bejan put it so eloquently in the following: "Life is movement. Every living system performs better when the power that is required for maintaining its movement is minimized. Just as lightning bolts and river basins should generate treelike structures to reduce thermodynamic imperfection and increase flow access, animals should have evolved to cover a greater distance for less effort, which means per unit of useful energy derived from food." http://www.amazon.com... The second part of the last sentence (in the above Bejan's quote), maintains a reflection of that familiar pattern of life's Unalienable Rights (Jefferson), or life's primitives (Takac). Even Herbert Spencer, some 80 plus years after Jefferson, coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" when studying Charles Darwin's research. Simply put, "Life," must have the freedom ("Liberty") in "the pursuit of" survival (positive-feedback, "Happiness" for the "fittest"). Perhaps, unbeknownst to Herbert and Charles, their observations were the embodiment of Jefferson's Rights. Digressing for a moment, imagine what the first half of the last century would have been like if Social Darwinism was influenced by the phrase "survival of the happiest," instead of "survival of the fittest." Just a thought. My Friend Burncastle (aka my opponent) that is what science is all about. Observing patterns, trying to understand nature and our place in it. There is nothing new here, just a new way of looking at something very old. And that new way could benefit humanity like the many other repeatable patterns, which were classified as Laws, blossoming in the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of nature.