Unalienable Rights

First - "... the soul will either be disturbed, so that its motion affects the body in a violent way, or it will be at rest in which case it regulates thoughts and actions harmoniously. Freedom from disturbance is the condition that causes human happiness, and this is the ethical goal." This is the whole quotation made by my opponent and its context is not that of the same nature. Furthermore: "Democritus built an ethical theory on top of his atomist philosophy. His system was purely deterministic so he could not admit freedom of choice to individuals. To Democritus freedom of choice was an illusion since we are unaware of all the causes for a decision. Democritus believed that:" Note the system for the ethical basis is deterministic. While my opponent provided no evidence that Jefferson would have cited Democritus to begin with it is completely evidence that if he had he would be contradicting himself as liberty is contrary to determinism. The source is my opponents source from last round (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...). Second - "We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life " physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production " in other words, individuality, liberty, property " this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." This is the complete quote and context for Bestiat (http://bastiat.org...) in the work "The Law" and it proceeds to explain that first it is assumed that the law is Divine in nature and furthermore, "Each of us has a natural right " from God " to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force " his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right " its reason for existing, its lawfulness " is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force " for the same reason " cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." Bestiat suggests that the Law exists not naturally but instead it is a collective force, the birth of the law is built off of the reality of humanity versus the reality of humanity being dictated by naturalism. Bestiat's book is more about how Law should proceed rather than the Nature of Law or it's philosophical rooting with explanations for those beliefs. It is a managerial tome. The phrase "Pursuit of Survival" is not supported. It is not that it is obscure but instead that "Life" covers this statement and sentiment very well. It would be redundant so it is questionable if the basis of the argumentation surrounding the phrase itself has validity or relevance. It does not directly correlate to any particular idea mentioned by Jefferson or any of the other cited and accessible sources. If it is a quotation in a book in the first two citations by the opponent I cannot read those because they are Amazon links so you'll need to get a direct source which can be examined without cost in a readily available format. The phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" is not steadily used by my opponent so it is impossible to argue against one particular position without ignoring the other two. The first is the argumentation of a collective of a large nature, the second is the collective of a smaller nature (two people) and the third is a general overview that has no particular target. "The evidence of morality in a wide range of independently developed cultures across isolated human tribes empirically supports the hypothesis that morality is a universal force throughout nature. This force is responsible for the diversity of traditions, values, and languages that formed the independent civil societies found throughout the world today and throughout recorded history." Tribalism is actually a source of contention. Wars and whatnot are fought through tribal behavior so the concept of an "Unalienable Right" would eliminate, esp. if naturally instilled in humans, practices like slavery, abuse, war, etc. particularly because all of these violate at least Life and definitely Liberty if not also the Pursuit of Happiness however one chooses to use the ambiguous term. I propose instead that human ethics is a product of Reason versus naturally forming particularly because as humans progress technologically they abandon this behavior systematically; crime decreases as humans prosper (http://www.fbi.gov...), (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) and are more educated not vice versa where crime is a by-product of human corruption and aversion from the natural state of affairs.