3 ms·

In the US, rights are defined as things in which the government and private parties cannot take away. As you've stated, a society will break down if there is n

In the US, rights are defined as things in which the government and private parties cannot take away. As you've stated, a society will break down if there is no enforcement of rights as it is equivalent to them not existing. This is because the government is the sole definer of rights, and they only exist because the government has the will and ability to enforce them. Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. This may be different under other governments depending on how rights are defined in their society, but in the US it is absolutely not the case.

DarylZero 5y ago
Again, how rights are defined on paper is different from how the real world is. In the USA, law isn't only defined by statute, it's also defined by the courts through case law. The courts in the USA have some doctrines like "substantive due process" that say at least sometimes the law will look also at real rights that people can actually exercise, and not just paper rights. > Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. And yet as a matter of inevitable biology, every other right derives from access to water. A person without water lacks all other rights and all capacity for exercise of any right (e.g. speech).
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Yes, I would maintain my stance even in the face of death by thirst. Private property is private. Thankfully we have massive amounts of people that give charitably so the real chances of dying of thirst are near zero.
- impendingchange 5y ago
  The American court system as defined by corporate statutes has shown itself incapable of, nay, unwilling to uphold rights of the people. The dead "person" corporation government model has provided a level of abstraction that lends to callous disregard to "un-a-lien-able" rights. It has given the government an interface with which to fasten liens upon people disregarding the Declaration of Independence.

DarylZero 5y ago

Again, how rights are defined on paper is different from how the real world is. In the USA, law isn't only defined by statute, it's also defined by the courts through case law. The courts in the USA have some doctrines like "substantive due process" that say at least sometimes the law will look also at real rights that people can actually exercise, and not just paper rights. > Neither housing nor water are human rights in the US because they, as the commenter stated, require you infringe on someone else's private property (resources, time) to provide them. And yet as a matter of inevitable biology, every other right derives from access to water. A person without water lacks all other rights and all capacity for exercise of any right (e.g. speech).

hellojesus 5y ago
Yes, I would maintain my stance even in the face of death by thirst. Private property is private. Thankfully we have massive amounts of people that give charitably so the real chances of dying of thirst are near zero.
impendingchange 5y ago
The American court system as defined by corporate statutes has shown itself incapable of, nay, unwilling to uphold rights of the people. The dead "person" corporation government model has provided a level of abstraction that lends to callous disregard to "un-a-lien-able" rights. It has given the government an interface with which to fasten liens upon people disregarding the Declaration of Independence.