4 ms·
Agreed. Fundamentally, when you say you have a "human right" to, e.g., food, you are saying that you have the right to take, without compensation, the time and
by AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
Agreed. Fundamentally, when you say you have a "human right" to, e.g., food, you are saying that you have the right to take, without compensation, the time and energy of farmers, ranchers, food packers, etc. When you say you have a "human right" to healthcare, you are saying that it is right to enslave doctors, nurses, etc., to your needs. This is all wrong.
Rights are freedoms, not entitlements. You're free to speak your mind. Free to gather with others. Free to bear arms. Free from unwarranted search and seizure. Free to seek work. Free to live.
- dane-pgp 5y ago> Rights are freedoms, not entitlements. Then a starving man should have the freedom to take a loaf of bread from a grocery store without paying. It is only the government's (or the grocery store's) infringement of his rights (by fining, assaulting, or imprisoning him) that prevents him doing this. By starting from the premise that private property is an inherent reality of the universe, rather than a legal fiction, you force a distinction between the "right" to free speech and the "entitlement" to food, when no such distinction exists. The real question is how best should a government administer the right to property such that people's right to food is also protected.