It's certainly an interesting topic, and one that does need to be explored.

However, there's a huge aspect that somewhat makes anything decided or discussed here rather meaningless - what if the ETs have zero respect for our laws? (in much the same way as the colonial forces didn't give two hoots about the laws and customs of the peoples they invaded)

Interesting that they use the Major Arcana - the Archetypes of the Tarot, to frame information topics by.

I don't understand your problem. His argument is that people don't know the correct definition of a right, then giving the definition he thinks is correct to teach it.

The point about hierarchies is that nature only knows hieronomies, which is a word nobody uses because people don't know the difference. A hierarchy literally is a "holy rulership", while a hieronomy is a "holy order". People nowadays mean order when using the word hierarchy.

Nature doesn't know rulership. The lion doesn't rule, nor does the ant queen. Rulership is an abstract concept created by the sapient mind. It's the idea that people have to follow a ruler for a fictional reason that doesn't exist in nature at all.

"the initial proposition was that there are forces around the world (people and organisations) who have been able to keep the rest of the people in line, subservient, controlled, ignorant - by using their knowledge of this supposed "Natural Law""

They use the knowledge insofar as they know what to teach and what not to teach, so people grasp wrong ideas that make them controllable. Hierarchy as a natural concept is a good example for such a wrong idea, that, if people believe in it being right, creates acceptance of the ruler as a being with more rights than the subjects.

The truth is: No ruler or government has more rights than you have as an individual.

I think it's disappointing that you don't "understand [my] problem", especially since this planet has been ruled by people simply because the people haven't bothered to think for themselves, and uncritically accept what they are told by others who think they know better. People don't bother to use critical thinking, to examine statements, to check for sufficient evidence. In short, people want to be ruled.

"His argument is that people don't know the correct definition of a right, then giving the definition he thinks is correct to teach it." - Ok, fair enough...

'then giving the definition he thinks is correct to teach it." - NO! He gives a 'definition;, which is given in a way that is meant to be accepted by everyone. However, nowhere else is this definition used. So, it's merely opinion. And opinions on how languages work doesn't help in the transmission of information.

"A hierarchy literally is a "holy rulership", while a hieronomy is a "holy order". People nowadays mean order when using the word hierarchy."

Unfortunately, languages change, and words change meanings. We no longer use the literal meaning of words when they were first invented (unless in recent history).

"Nature doesn't know rulership. "

Have you never looked at nature???

Nature *does* have hierarchies! I'm sure you know the term "pecking order" - it came about specifically because a hierarchy was observed in chickens. We also have the term 'alpha male' - the male of a pack of animals that rules over the others. There are also instances of animals being ostracised from groups. (cf 'leader of the pack').

"The truth is: No ruler or government has more rights than you have as an individual."

Depends on what you mean by 'right' here. In the legal sense, unfortunately, yes they do. And, frankly, to a large extent, that's all that matters! The term 'might makes right' is something we have to deal with.

However, I do agree with the principle.

(And, as I've stated elsewhere, it doesn't really matter how much you may think you are morally superior, you're still getting downtrodden by those who don't suffer the consequences of breaking someone else's 'rights')

"People don't bother to use critical thinking, to examine statements, to check for sufficient evidence. In short, people want to be ruled."

That's why they accept the wrong idea that rights come from rulers.

"NO! He gives a 'definition;, which is given in a way that is meant to be accepted by everyone."

A definition is meant to be accepted by definition. If you disagree, feel free to have another definition. But that doesn't change the outcome in reality, which can be proven empirically, and that's the argument: With the wrong definition of what a right is, people will manifest suffering in the long term.

"Nature *does* have hierarchies!"

When using the word hierarchy for the concept of order, then yes, nature does have hierarchies. But it's not rulership, because hierarchy doesn't mean rulership anymore, which is your own point.

"I'm sure you know the term "pecking order" - it came about specifically because a hierarchy was observed in chickens."

This is simple violence, which is common among animals because they don't think about it.

"We also have the term 'alpha male' - the male of a pack of animals that rules over the others."

Alpha males don't rule, they lead. There's an important difference between a leader and a ruler. But unfortunately, we no longer use the literal meaning of words, therefore the knowledge is lost over time.

"Depends on what you mean by 'right' here."

A right in the sense of Mark Passio's definition.

"The term 'might makes right' is something we have to deal with."

No, might makes not right, but privilege. Another term people can't tell the difference anymore. A privilege based on violence is not a right. It's an animalistic pecking order. Sapient beings, meaning beings who understand the difference between right and wrong, create privilege exclusively through contracts, acknowledging the free will.

"you're still getting downtrodden by those who don't suffer the consequences of breaking someone else's 'rights'"

You are responsible for the consequences. If violent people don't suffer consequences, it's because people don't defend themselves and surrender.