Maybe I did put too much in the "disagreeable person" thing - sorry. It was not meant to mislead, although logically it could be extended to include what I mentioned. Still, I don't want to put words in the mouth of anyone - much less a man of Tibor Machan's stature - and on looking it over, I admit that I pushed the concept further than I should have. Apologies also to Tibor.
I will look harder at his texts as I still think we have many points in common.
But I think you and I are always going to disagree (including Robert M). I do not find any rights at all inherent in man's nature. All I find inherent basically are a bunch of capacities with specific natures (like cognition, two arms and two legs, digestion, etc.), a birth-growth-death cycle, and physical survival requirements (like food, shelter, etc.). Not much else.
I easily see people surviving the world over and throughout history without any rights at all, so what survival are you talking about? "Proper" survival, whatever that means? Oops - there we go with a value judgment.
The monkey-wrench in the works, of course, is volition. That is where a need for ethics - in order to guide choices - arises. Good and evil. Proper and improper. That kind of thing. So, now about your term "proper survival." Hmmmm...
Are rights needed for "proper" survival? Nope. Ethics are.
How about "proper" (ethical) survival giving rise to social rights (since all rights are social in nature) as being the correct logical sequence? That sounds a lot better to me.
Once a society is formed, rights arise from the ethics that are practiced.
To give a small breakdown in the philosophical chain of priority (most important or fundamental first, then going in descending order):
Metaphysics - Fundamental. Grandaddy of it all. Existence. The whole basic context for any specific thing. Axioms (when intertwined with epistemology).
Epistemology - Reason. Less fundamental than metaphysics, but intertwined with it for conscious conceptual beings, as consciousness both exists and perceives existence.
Ethics - Specific only to conscious conceptual beings, who by nature have volition. Rational selfishness - good and evil, proper and improper.
Politics - Specific only to groups of conscious conceptual beings with volition (meaning the possibility of choosing the good and proper, but also the evil and improper). Rights, capitalism and enforcement of both (government).
That's my take.
This discussion is getting boring, though. Instead of dealing with the issues I mention, principally the derivation of rights from ethics, all I get now is repetitions of the same old intrinsic "rights are inherent to man" metaphysical party line. Constant repetition is not proof of anything and I am not a parrot. Braaaaawk!