The Science of Rights

Thank you Con for sharing your “preliminary research” and the time invested in trying to identified my true identity. Just because my screen name Mike_10-4 looks like Mike10four and just because I used Takac's response to Erdic Johnson in this debate, Con concludes that I am Takac. I also used some of Adrian Bejan's (the scientist who discovered the Constructal Law) statements in this debate, I must be him as well. I'm sorry Con, your research is not conclusive, only circumstantial. And in saying that, I wish to remain anonymous. In any event, who I am is not the subject of this debate. My opponent should stay focus! I would like to remind Con the subject of this debate is “The Science of Rights” with its companion video. The video and the two books the video made reference to empirically demonstrates that life's Unalienable Rights of “Life,” having the freedom (“Liberty”) in “the pursuit of” survival (positive-feedback or “Happiness” for us humans) is part of the physical Laws of Nature, an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, not some political philosophy or some man's metaphysical dream. This scientific incarnation proves Jefferson's “self-evident” claim in the Declaration of Independence “that all men ... are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It turns out, all life has those Rights, from a single-cell to humans. This is a profound departure from the classical and today's scholarly view on Rights. Out of those scholars who reference Unalienable Rights, historically took the position they only apply to humanity. An understanding of life's Unalienable Rights, being an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, will mark a stage in humanity's intellectual evolution of living-systems throughout the world and perhaps the universe, resulting in some realignment of how man is ruled by other men.My opponent keeps looping back to “Hobbesian” with such classical terms as “natural rights” (aka “natural law,” which is not the same as the physical Laws of Nature), in addition, metaphysics, “civil and political rights” all alluding to man's philosophy; subject to manipulation. Those traditional philosophers my opponent mentioned ("Locke, Hobbes," etc.) took man out of the Dark Ages in the 1600s, but today in our modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor. Many, like my opponent, treats Unalienable Rights as some romantic man-made “natural law” concept to aspire to, overlooking its empirical presence found throughout the symphony of life via the Constructal Law. A Law in nature that is not man-made, and this fact is the key to help calibrate humanity over the influence physical Laws in Nature have on social systems, morality, the rule of law, economics; detail covered in the books the video made reference to. For example, morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The scientific community is starting to examine the link between morality and science, last month's Scientific American article.http://www.michaelshermer.com...The first paragraph in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy on morality states it nicely. http://plato.stanford.edu...“What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.”The articles in last month's Scientific American and Stanford's take on morality, relative to “non-human animals,” are weak for they lack the Constructal Law connection. It will only be a matter of time.In today's social climate it is obvious more science is needed in the political sciences and in the social science fields. Little advancement in those fields since the 1600 and 1700s, mainly due to lack of understanding over the influence those physical Laws of Nature have on social systems. To get the word out about this Constructal Law discovery, the video takes the discourse out of the ivory tower for all to understand. My opponent feels whether Bejan and Takac's “thesis is correct or not, it nevertheless contributes no useful or helpful insights to society.” Quite the contrary, this new discovery links, for the first time, the physical Laws of Nature to the social domain via our Unalienable Rights; no more, no less. My opponent should realized, a new discovery of a Law in Nature does not immediately yield fruits in the standard of living. For example, Isaac Newton's discovery of the Laws of Motion in the late 1600s did not produce automobiles the next day. George Boole's discovery in 1847of a binary algebra (aka Boolean algebra) did not produce iPhones or computers the next day; and so on. This lag time between discovery and prosperity is true in all cases throughout the sciences. So too, such a lag time is expected in the discovery of our Unalienable Rights being part of the Laws of Nature.Why wait for the political scholars to understand this incarnation? In the meantime, for the benefits of Unalienable Rights to blossom, the seed of this knowledge should spread throughout the masses; hence, this YouTube video designed for the average YouTube viewer. Understanding these Rights by all, at the individual level, will help the subtle progression of social optimization and configuration of governance, for the physical Laws of Nature are universal and omnipotent, according to Takac. Understanding our Unalienable Rights as a physical Law in Nature - not man-made - and from the beneficial historical performance of humanity working with those physical Laws (automobiles, iPhones, food production, medicine, etc.), perhaps, one day a global social renaissance may emerge lifting the standard of social living for all. On the other hand, the information this video offers, may not be very well received by the tyrannical ruling-class oligarch throughout the world; more the reason why everyone should view this video. In response to Con's curiosity about me, I took the liberty to view his profile. I see Con is in the “Legal” profession. I now understand his conservative bias relative to our Unalienable Rights due to the current state of philosophical indoctrination. I could only hope, Con will follow his “Liberal” ideology, an ideology embracing an open liberal mind to invite new discovery, and study how mankind may benefit from the progressive nature of said discovery. I challenge my opponent to view the video again with an open mind, following through with research on this new discovery about our Unalienable Rights. Viewing those Rights from a scientific vantage point, may open new doors in his profession, while being ahead of his peers; for man cannot change the Laws of Nature, he is trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. As for the video's objective, it seems to be on course. It sparked my opponent's interest on the subject: “The Science of Rights,” the topic of this debate. That is the prime objective of the video, to stimulate discussion and debate throughout the human family over a new discovery about our Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature. In closing I thank Con for taking this debate and fulfilling the video's objective; and finally I wish my opponent a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty,” in the moral “pursuit of Happiness.” In addition, I look forward in meeting Con again on the debating floor.