I managed to come up with these three so far:

1. The right not to be harmed. Harm is defined as something which causes them pain, or unneccersary change to their mental or physical state.

2. The right not to be interfered with, unless it is justified by the above right.

3. The right to do anything that does not violate the rights of other people, as defined above.

However, I'm thinking that 2 and 3 could be conditional, especially in the context of a Fderal Nightwatmen/Minarchist system, where they would be replaced by the right to change state.

The above post basically echose my position from the 'Cleanslate Etthics and Morality' thread: the right not to be harmed and the right to follow ones political ideology, with the former having precedence over the latter.

There, that's about got it licked.

All rights are conditional, and all are relative. The universe we live in means that there is no so called "Right" that in some cases is "wrong," and ends up with fewer goals achieved for fewer people (IE my definition of bad).

What if a situation arose where 2 people would die were one not sacrificed? What then? That is a violation of these "rights," but certainly we can agree that in this case it makes the most sense? What about taking someone to a psychologist to keep them from committing suicide? Certainly suicide is an unnecessary change to their physical state, but is the psychologist an unnecessary change to their mental state? Is it okay to beat the s*** out of someone, while they're drugged, and then leave them such until they recover, then send them back to their lives with no lasting effects? Would it be wrong to jail you or send you to a psychologist in order to prevent you from doing that?

I am against established rights for the same reason I am against a government- its totally unnecessary if people work together. If its imperfect, then it should probably be replaced with something that can work perfectly- Anarcho-Communism.

Since this is the clean slate, there is no reason to compromise on it.

Human nature, Redsand, human nature. People aren't going to work together, at least over a certain size.

Besides, what problem do you have with someone guaranteeing your right to have a Anarcho-Communism state?

Amend the first right I came up with: I'd have it as the right not to be harmed without your consent. That way, if someone wants to be eaten (and some people do) then... hmmm. Are they mentally ill? How does that affect our law system?

Prove it to me, then. Human activities vary immensely based on culture, and if you look even in your own mind I guarantee you'll find a huge amount of things that are only such because everyone around you was such.

Change society, you change everything.

You can't base human rights on a secular, atheistic outlook, because such a viewpoint lacks the idea of objective human rights. Snce you seem to be demanding that rights be ased on such an outlook...

Yes, rights are irrelevant.

Presumably you want rights to be based on something that isn't an atheistic outlook- IE a 2000 year old fairy tale based on a bronze age myth.

What evidence have you that shows that objective human rights need to exist?

Remember, because is not a reason. Not in a CS I'm a part of, at least.

Atheism does not mean the absence of morals or rights. Let's get that out of the way first.

Second, why don't you start your CSCS without a guarantee of rights. Tobias and I will start one with a set of guaranteed rights protected by the state, and we'll see what happens.

If my CS were founded on Universal Utilitarian principles, your list of rights would be better enforced in it without any enforcement.

Rights enforced without enforcement? That's a contradiction, an oxymoron, a paradox.

Nope. People would do things without coercion, but they would do what benefits everyone nevertheless.

And in fact instead of having to fit it into words that are by nature not exact, people will do what you're actually trying to express with these rights: the greatest goal fulfillment for the greatest number.

There would be either infinite rights or no rights in my CS, since none would be stated but people would be limited only by choice.

New one: the right to not be ignorant. That covers education, to a degree - it's there if you want it, and you have to be aware that it's available - and the news, as well as freedom of information.

That's very ambiguous and the term "ignorance", as well as to whether this is a positive or negative right (A positive right is for example a right to universal healthcare, while a negative right is to not have your freedom of location impinged upon, IE one is a right to while another is a right of), or to what extent it is a positive or negative right.

Keep in mind that the right to not be ignorant could be anything from the right to pay to go to a private school to the right to know everything about everyone and everything.

Positive right - permit or demand action
Negative right - permit or demand inaction

Okay, for Redsands delectation - "The right to information about other ideologies, and the constitution".

Clearer, at least.

As far as the archaic concept of enforced lists of rights goes, this isn't so bad, although I'm against the entire concept.

Your right to an education goes as far as knowing that you can get an education if you want one.

To what extent? Paid leave from your job, if not a minor, or just to it being legal to operate a private school.

Is this a positive or negative right? Positive would be that the state governments are mandated to provide said education, negative meaning that they're required to do nothing to stop you from paying for your own education? Is college included? To what extent can that education be biased (Remember, all education is indoctrination to some extent)?

Quite a bureaucracy would develop in order to make sure that these rights are provided for everyone.

This is related to the right to follow ones political ideology - if your government doesn't let you access the Internet, go to one that does, and your previous government can't stop you, no matter what your age.