[sudosysgen]

> Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives.

The laws of nature do not include any rights, unless there's some new physics I'm not aware of.

> But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.

This is an argument from morality. You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good and then use that to justify the rights you advocate for.

You fundamentally cannot make an argument for what something should be like without resorting to morality. Without it, you can only make arguments on what things are.

[WalterBright]

> You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good

I said how well societies work, and have also used words like "thrive" and "prosperous". We have evolved to be that way, it's our local optima just like beehives have evolved a different local optima.

> you can only make arguments on what things are.

And that's exactly what I did. Humans starve to death under communism - every time it has been tried. Nobody starves due to loose morals.