I think you are confusing social with generous. It is the goal of every person to focus on themselves more than others as it should be. Society exist because it is benificial for individuals to participate with each other to benifit themselves. They dont participate for altruistic reasons, they are being rewarded for their participation.

Rights may not be concrete but the argument isn't about about the REASON rights exist. The argument is about what they are and where they come from. And my example is a common view that is held as to the nature of certain rights that people believe are fundamental and how said rights are decided upon.

As for the REASON rights exist well... There is no reason, that's like asking the reason why gravity exist or the reason natural laws exist or reason people exist. The answer quite literally is just because they do. The reason is irrelevant. That's why this particular definition of a right is so wide spread. Any reason the right has to existing is purely philosophical and doesnt hold weight in the real world.

I was talking about these types of rights from the logical consistency standpoint. Said consistency is what often draws people to this definition of rights most often. It provides a logically consistent answer for what rights are and where they come from as you where critiquing rights not being logically consistent. If someone disagrees that these things should be rights then that's a matter of opinion but it doesn't change their logical consistency.

In a vacuum more so means not in collaboration with other humans ie not part of a society or family which has happened very frequently. And while yes currently people do not live in a vacuum it is a very good starting point as humans are naturally selfish. Thus why I said those rights are adapted to fit society and technology levels. Rights like certain personal freedoms.

People arent always going have parent and it is still possible for a person to become completely isolated from other people even in first world countries.

They are related yes but are not the same thing. So their concepts dont exactly transfer over. But still i even said that by evolutionarily standards that wealthy people have adapted and succeeded.

Society isn't a scale, its not mean to be perfectly balanced ESPECIALLY not when there is a focused goal to achieve some kind of forced balance, that often leads to societal catastrophe. Thats what the purpose of capitalism is, the ability for a economy to correct itself with extremely limited intervention.

Wealthy people very often can afford to forget about adaptation after they have lost their mo at. If you see that as a bubble that is about to pop then there shouldn't be any issue then since the bubble popping would be the problem fixing itself.

People have large amounts of wealth currently have a much different position than something like a monarchy did in the past. They dont control the government and there isn't just some singular target or family. Its just a bunch of individuals many of whom people dont even know the names of.

No one is forced to follow capitalism, if they want to they can move to one of the non capitalist countries and try any number of alternative economic systems that they want. Socialism may not be as extreme in its forced redistribution compared to its contemporaries but it is still forced. And in a country that values individual liberty above all else those two are not a good fit. Natural laws are hard set into reality, and even those we be can occasionally bend, man made laws hold even less meaning than them. The goal is less constraints of freedom, not more.

Another logically consistent way you can define a right is that a right is something a person has intrinsically. Something they are born with and that cant be taken away in a vacuum. So something like the right to say what ever you want would be consistent in that as in a vacuum no one would be able to stop you from saying certain things. A right to weapons can be seen as the adaptation of the natural right a person has to protect themselves via what ever means they see fit. Its just been adapted to fit a society and the technology of modern times.

There forever and always has been and will be power imbalances. That's how power works, not everyone can or is even suppose to have the same amount of power. And its the nature of power to accumulate.

The US does indeed have a unique culture of people becoming wealthy. It allows for people to keep more of the wealth they earned compared to other countries. Most millionaires in the US aren't born into wealth, they earn it.

Class mobility in socialist countries is a bit over stated as there is already a smaller class disparity in those countries in the first place so of course it would be easier for people to raise class status when the gap isn't as large. In the US you still have class mobility but it happens in a much wider range compared to other countries. IE the potency of the class mobility in the US is much higher. Not to mention the US having more freedoms than those other countries comes with the downside of letting people make the wrong decisions.

Darwin is referring to biology were as we are referring to society. Both have separate rules as to how success is gained. But even by evolutionary standards wealthy people did adapt to some situation they found themselves in and became wealthy as a result of said adaptation. So wealthy that they no longer need to worry about adaptation ever again and in alot of cases neither do their children, thats what success is.

Forced redistribution of resources has never worked out well. I dont think its in peoples best interest to attempt to topple a stable societal structure that has provided all the resources we have in our modern world. Its like saying someone deserves to get something stolen because they were tempting a thief. Its the thief that is the problem, not the person who get stolen from.

I dont think there is an level of disadvantage that can't be overcome with enough competence. If the disadvantage largely exceeds the competence then yes the naturally the competence makes up a smaller proportion of an individuals agency, but the opportunities still arise to take advantage of said small level of competence to SOME degree at least.

There are people whos disadvantages out way their competence but that doesn't mean they have no options at all. And id think its a very very small minority of people in the first place.

Obviously if you are born wealthy you have an advantage but thats just it, its an advantage, not a gurentee. The same goes for someone being poor, just because they are at a disadvatage doesn't mean they wont find success. Luck is always a factor but the main factor still is competence.

Well yes you would expect the people that are born into wealth to become wealthy more frequently than those who arent born into wealth. Life isnt going to be statistically perfectly balanced so you are always going to get anomalies and outliers. You could even attribute that to americas unique culture when it comes to people being able to become wealthy.

Of course a person in power doesn't ALWAYS "deserve" to have said power but most of the time they are, at least in western countries. Who are we to say who doesnt and doesnt deserve what anyway.

Logically just having intelligence isnt going to guarantee success. But it does already greatly increase the chances of success and is large reason why a majority of the rich have the positions they do.

Isnt it the logical conclusion that those who have become so wealthy are wealthy because they were competent enough to forever escape the need for basic survival? They are the ones with high mental fortitude and they used that to gain their wealth.

And that those who are poor are that way because they lack the mental fortitude that is required to climb through the ranks of society?

The right to feel any way you want I dont think is the same as having something given to you that would make you feel a certain way. For example you have the right to feel happy, but not the right to be given happiness. Before intellectualization must come survival. So i'd think the inherent rights people have should be focused on first. The rights people are born with that cant be given or taken away in a vacuum.