Today, 01:12 PM
Right, that's what I started off on. I read it, and that section called "Religious Nature" points out that "no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy".
That does not make it correct. If anything, it suggests that it is in fact not correct.
It is in man's nature to walk. Would you argue that it is against man's nature to walk?
There are abundant examples of men who do not walk. Yet no sane man would look at those exceptions and state "This is the nature of man, not to walk".
Yet this is exactly what the natural rights arguer does. He looks at humanity, which for thousands of years either didn't know about or didn't respect natural rights, and which only has had one country in over one hundred even pay lip service to the concept - and that country has done an abjectly horrible job at respecting natural rights, by the way - he takes all that in, and says "No, the man who believes in natural rights, that is what is natural; that is man's nature."
It is the same as if he had said "the man who rolls around in a chair and does not use his legs, that is what is natural".