Maybe that's where you're feeling there is a woo. I have not said an innate right. I said rights are inherent. As in, an inherent characteristic of existing in nature.
The difference between innate and inherent is whether or not the bearer is alive.
I think this stems from the difference between is and ought. You could say that there's a right in that something ought to happen, but that right doesn't actually exist, per se.
The woo comes in when you start describing the existence of some property that is independent of our simple labeling of it as a thing.
Because just saying take or be taken doesn't cover it all.
Sure, it was specifically applied to the question of impedence.
I may feel that the weeds ought to not impede on my garden, and say my garden has a right to be without weeds, but there is no property of my garden to be weed-free independent of me just not wanting there to be weeds in it. In that case, I either take the weeds out of my garden or they take over. There's nothing added by bringing the case of rights into it.
And if you get all hippy-dippy on me and start talking about my garden having the right to exist without weeds, then I'm gonna call woo. Maybe your just saying that I ought to be able to have a garden without weeds (which is true), but it sounds like you're saying my garden has some inherent property independent of us applying a label (which is false).
We clearly recognize some quality in living things that we deem necessary to protect, and have extended that protection to other living things.
I don't think its a quality of the thing, I think its our own desires.
My garden doesn't possess a weed-free quality, I just don't want there to be weeds in it. Call that a right if you want, but I'm gonna tell you its woo.
We try to decern what those things may be and have as of now called those things "rights".
™ Version 4.2
(1)
