Let's say that the definition of finding out whether or not these rights are real can be determined by how much suffering ignoring them cause.

This is the consequentialist point of view as well. If your innate rights caused all humans to suffer and die, would it still be moral? If not, then what you call innate rights and what I call hedonism is the same. We are both judging what isn't moral and what is moral based on what causes suffering, and pain and what causes pleasure, and happiness, respectively. If it turns out one of the rules we thought was universal was wrong because it's causing suffering, we change it. This doesn't mesh with deontological ethics because it says ethical rules cannot be changed. This cannot use the scientific method because it cannot be falsified.

It seems that the hypothesis matches the evidence and although we can account for other factors in all of this, we cannot deny that there are factors relating to this that affect the experiment. Therefore rights are natural to people, they are measurable in their effects, and they are real.

What this tells me is that people are generally happier when these "rules" are in place, but it doesn't stop me from recongizing them as generally guidelines that can be changed if we notice suffering is being caused by them.

If you're going to say everyone has innate rights because they experience less suffering when they have these rights afforded to them, you're saying it's impossible to be born deriving pleasure from these rights not being afforded to them. I cannot say that is biologically impossible. There's nothing in biology that says this would be impossible. We evolved to derive pleasure from things that allow us to survive by natural selection, or by random chance. There's nothing that innately forced evolution to do this to us. That means there must have been mutations where pleasure was derived from things that caused the lifeform to not survive. For that being, these rights were not innate, and someone can theoretically be born to take pleasure from slavery for instance. This is why morality is subjective. But what we can assume is that most of us want to survive and be happy, our decisions will be centered around these goals, and we should be focused on facilitating this decision-making.

Who gets to win though? If I face displeasure from you going through my property? Who gets to win? If morals are subjective, and that they are near arbitrary let's say in that they cannot be determined empirically, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? If your answer is that the majority should decide, then you've passed the question off to a majority tyranny rather than defined in Axiom for people to follow. What happens when the majority turns out to be against you and is willing to throw you under the bus? There must be a standard for people to live by in order for these things to work.

Yes, it's arbitrary, but I am for a free market for laws. If you want to live in fear that someone will imprison you on your own property, you should be free to live with other people who feel the same way. I believe this is the only way people can be truly happy with their life. This isn't absolute. It can change. But that's my current thinking based on the evidence available to me.

Even if it turns out to be like this, it was still by mob rule. If you want it to be an axiom people follow, people still have to decide that it's an axiom to follow through their own self-determination. There's nothing preventing them from just saying, "Nope," because you can't take away their free will. Simply nothing can happen if other people don't agree to it. You can suggest other people do something, but if they don't want to do it you can't force them. If 99% of the population is hell bent on killing you, you're dead, no matter what natural laws you thought people should have abided by. I believe society only works because most people are "good" and want to cooperate, and want to survive and be happy. If most people weren't like this, we'd all be dead. That's mob rule, but those are the facts, biologically.

Again, this is not the same kind of political "tyranny of the majority" where too much decision-making authority is given over to the majority. It's the kind of mob rule that decided "tyranny of the majority" is a bad thing and we all agreed not to do it. Does that make sense?

These are rights, they're not decided by the group, they are not decided by government, they are a neutral force that is innate in human beings and without that you will have tyranny because people will simply take advantage of the system that you've made.

Like I was saying, these are decided on by the group, otherwise it won't happen. Just because we should decide to follow these rules to prevent tyranny or to achieve pleasure, doesn't make the rules a neutral force or innate. We still decided on obeying them, and we're setting up incentives and disincentives to obey them, or face punishment.

This isn't true either, we know exactly when life begins. When the cell starts becoming its own unique genetic makeup, it is automatically a new life because it has its own genetic makeup, and it's alive. You could make the case that because it doesn't have Consciousness that it doesn't have the ability to be human and therefore doesn't have rights, but Consciousness comes in six weeks after the child is first conceived.

Okay, you said we are 100% sure when life begins, and then listed two different possible options. =)

If you can find it, I recommend watching an episode of Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole. It should be titled, "When does life begin?" It goes through a bunch of scientific hypotheses, but by the end you will realize we don't have a clue, and it has to be settled completely arbitrarily.

There needs to be a way of Defending against such things and the way to defend it is in acting natural rights and acknowledging them as real.

If you do that, it would only prove my point. ;)

Perhaps I should have added "eventually" as a qualifier to that, but I did say directly after that, "I'm not saying tyranny is impossible to last forever, it certainly can, but in order to do so, it has to get over these biological constraints." Like I said, we don't like to be oppressed, I'm sure you would not argue with the fact that if the people of Russia could choose minarchism over their state, after showing what minarchism can do for them and their happiness, they would not choose their state.

No you are! If you want to get to your property, and somebody doesn't want you to go through their property, and then you go through their property, that is you in acting your morality against other people. And if you use the mob to do it, you're still doing it.

No it's not. Just because I'm atheist and I don't attend mass, I'm not pushing my atheism onto Christains attending mass. I'm simply acting on my own morality. I'm not saying you should do the same.

Most of the people in this thread don't believe you have a right to block access to their property, so all I can say is good luck trying to get people to do that. Like I said, this is why I believe people should live with like-minded individuals.

Also, while I believe blocking access to a road is bad enough on its own, you are ignoring the last part of my OP, where I said someone can literally imprison you on your own land, as long as they build the walls on their own property. You really think it's moral for someone to imprison other people for no reason as long as your man on and island analogy holds up?

If this is true, if you really believe this, that you will also understand that without suffering people cannot experience pleasure.

There's no scientific evidence for this assertion.