Will you make the text of your paper available for sale or distribution after your presentation? I would be most interested in reading it.

And that's why we have free will. Man is, by and large, anti-nature which is one reason for his dominance over other creatures.

Natural & free -- better than just nice. Perfect.

The first step of the journey, and the hardest one to take.

Actually, it is a premise that CANNOT be proved, nor is it correct; as in a 'law of nature', nor is the premise even as strong as a 'law of economics'. What it is, it is a supposition that allows men of good conscious to maintain an orderly society; and, in the worst case to prevent lesser men from destroying the society so formed.

Simply put if my 'rights' were truly incapable of being suppressed then I could violate the rights of others with impunity.

What the supposition seeks to impose is the premise that there are 'fundamental' rights that cannot be abridged without causing an inherent state of discontent among the people whose rights are so impinged.

And that returns us to the circular argument that it is as wrong to impose a set of restrictions on another individual, as it is to allow another to impose restrictions upon ourselves! It is in our nature to resist.

Nature isn't "concerned" with anything. It is simply is. "Man's nature" as the basis of rights means the attributes of human beings and our means of survival as based on rational thought. We do not have "built in" behaviors of submission and tribalism.

That is not a validation of rights.

yes

There is none unless you agree that at a fundamental level, all people share a commonality of opportunity granted by their ability (but not level of ability) to perceive reality and act. And following that, you have to agree that all share a commonality of priority - that no one is inherently granted superior claim to reality over another, i.e., that no single person (or group) has the inherent natural ability to overrule or inherently prevent the actions of another.

Once we establish that everyone has the claim to independently perceive reality and act, then comes the application of cause and effect, i.e. the application of justice. Justice dictates that reality isn't subject to whim - its laws exist independent of the actions of agents who may choose courses of action which either adhere to the principles of reality or not. Justice dictates certain reactions to go with certain actions. Rights then are derived from the application of these "just" reactions which are calculated to adhere to the laws of reality and promote the pursuance of acts conforming to the laws of reality.

For that, I would recommend reading Leornard Piekoff's book. You may start with a discussion of the nature of reality, metaphysics, and the nature of knowledge, epistemology. only then can you move into discussions on perception, concepts, the validity of the senses, and othe branches of philosophy like ethics and politics. Rights are an ethical and political notion.

Basically, though, if you start with "A is A" and then follow logically with the primacy of existence as a guide, rather than the primacy of consciousness, you'll get there.

The proof is that A is A.

Start with...
I own myself.
I am responsible for the consequences of my own choice of actions.
...and work forward.

while this is true, people relate to a statement like, "The natural
rights of humans are derived from their innate characteristics
and the proof of survival of the fittest." . while the proof statement
tends to favor "might makes right," I submit that the United States
has improved that proof by its very existence. -- j
.