10 ms·

Sorry to nit pick but human rights protect you from having force used against you. You can't have a human right to something that someone else must provide. Th

by javert 12y ago

Sorry to nit pick but human rights protect you from having force used against you. You can't have a human right to something that someone else must provide. That would be a violation of their rights.

clamprecht 12y ago
I agree with you - people want to label everything as a "human right". I think Internet access should be a right, but I don't think it's a human right. I guess it all depends how one defines "human right".
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  What kind of "right" is it if not a human right? It can't be an animal right, as animals other than humans don't use the Internet, in general.
  - clamprecht 12y ago
    It could be a Constitutional right, or a statutory right. For example, you have a right to a keep and bear arms (in the US), but that is a Constitutional right, not a human right.
    - SwellJoe 12y ago
      The Constitution defines what the founding fathers of the US considered human rights. I suppose statutory rights could fall under the category of "not human rights". And, I guess some folks consider some statutory rights to be directly contradictory to human rights (water shutoffs in Detroit or foreclosures of homes during the banking crisis, for example). What kind of right do you believe internet use would fall under?
      - clamprecht 12y ago
        In Reno vs. ACLU (1997), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Internet deserved free speech protection under the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Libertie... Some have argued that prohibiting Internet access to an otherwise free person (not a prisoner) is cruel and unusual punishment. In 1992 that was laughable. In 2015, it's much less laughable.
  - vacri 12y ago
    A 'human right' is a right that every human on the globe should possess. The right to vote in a democracy is not a human right - only citizens of that democracy can vote in it. It's reasonable to say that French citizens have the right to vote in France, but not that the entire globes should, for example.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I'm not sure if you're trying to play language games to be obtuse for some reason, but the right to be involved in one's government absolutely is a human right. To say "the right to vote in a democracy is not a human right" is arguably not false, just going on narrow definitions of "vote" and "democracy," but the right to be involved in one's government? Oh yes. Just because it is denied so many does not mean it is not still a human right.
      - vacri 12y ago
        ... you're saying that people who aren't citizens of France should be able to vote in French governmental elections? You're opposing "only citizens of that democracy can vote in it"? Why is it a human right for a Russian or a Fijian or an Argentinian to vote in the French elections? I can't make out what your problem with my comment is.
        Frondo 12y ago
        Wait, so you're saying... you don't disagree that all people have a human right to participate in their own government? That you only don't think all people should have the right to participate in all governments?
        vacri 12y ago
        Eh? I didn't say not in their own government. I said that people who are not French citizens can't vote in the French elections, and it's not a violation of human rights that they can't. I didn't say that Russians shouldn't be able to vote in Russia. Stop strawmanning my words. Edit: to be clearer - being able to get involved in your own government is a human right. Being able to vote in the French elections is a civil right, reserved to French citizens. All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.
- javert 12y ago
  I think the best term is "individual right," and the term "human right" should be abandoned. The original proponents of rights treated them as "individual rights." Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights." But for the sake of this conversation, I just went with "human right," accepting it as valid and not getting into all the mess I just talked about. By the way, a Constitutional right, ideally, is just an individual right that has been written specifically into the Constitution.
  - mbrock 12y ago
    Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights." That's a tendentious misrepresentation, bordering on incendiary, not at all suitable for this discussion forum. The human rights movement has roots in the Red Cross, the Geneva convention, and the post-war efforts to create international peace. International conventions on human rights are not primarily used to "violate individual rights." Yes, they are used to make claims for the positive duties of states and societies to care for the suffering. When water is available, none should be excluded; when water is needed, that is a human rights issue, and measures should be taken. (To make a counterpoint, the "individual" rights—of which you speak from a libertarian or Randian perspective—are not really all that individual. That's why the rhetoric of individual rights is so often used by those in favor of the rights of corporations. Randians equivocate the notions of the individual and the corporation for ideological reasons.)
    - innguest 12y ago
      I don't know about "Randians" but libertarians in general are against corporations as they are a product of the State. Individual rights are not losing their credibility because some illegitimate market rigging is allowed by the State.
      - javert 12y ago
        The proper term is "Objectivists," not "Randians." "Randians" is insulting (that is why mbrock is using it).
xnull2guest 12y ago
Negative/positive rights, yeah. It's gotten really complicated recently, though, hasn't it? It's pretty hard to provide your own water. Domestically and globally (Nestle and China each own close to half of the world's potable water). So at some point, even where someone 'owns' something - withholding it will cause people to clamor about their right to e.g. water (case in point the Water Crisis in Detroit). The point of the parent is that access to the internet is becoming so much part of life that it's starting to seem like a cultural and practical necessity.
- javert 12y ago
  The Nestle water situation doesn't actually pose any problem for the negative/positive rights distinction. I'm not familiar with the exact legal situation in parts of South America where that is an issue, but basically, if it's illegal to draw water from water sources and purify it yourself and sell it to others (perhaps via a municipal water system like we do in the civilized world), property rights have been misunderstood and misapplied.
- zanny 12y ago
  That is the state guaranteeing access to water. It isn't picking a guy out of the crowd, pointing a gun at his head, and telling him to work the well and give everyone else water. States usually reimburse private utility companies, or run them themselves. The superposter means, I think, that you cannot have a right that deprives someone else of their freedom. If nobody wanted to work at the water treatment plant, the government is hard pressed to compel anyone to work there within any sane persons logic. They would have to offer higher pay until someone did the job, but they couldn't point a gun at someone and make them do it. Unless they were a prisoner, or maybe a soldier.
wyager 12y ago
>Sorry to nit pick but human rights protect you from having force used against you. Right - people should be protected from the government using force to lock them in a cage without communication to the outside world.
a1369209993 12y ago
Air, water, food, heating and/or cooling as relevant. Just to name the most blatantly obvious counterexamples to your assertion.
- zanny 12y ago
  How are any of those human rights? If you are in the woods without water, someone is obliged to bring you some? If you are walking around on a winters eve and are cold, someone must give you a blanket? You can claim that the state will provide you things if you are without them, but that is more an offer on their part (albeit using coerced tax dollars) than violence upon others to force them to work for you without compensation, as the superposter implies. He means you cannot be guaranteed something that means someone else is compelled to provide it. The state as a whole could be compelled to give you something by its own laws, but they can't force an individual by mandate to do work, outside the already outlined exception to slavery.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I find it interesting that you picked one example that involves stepping outside the bounds of human civilization (e.g. walking around in the woods) to shore up your argument--as if we should all nod along and say yes, how silly! access to drinking water, a human right?? What puzzles me about this whole "a human right cannot be something that compels someone to do something" argument is how it breaks down not just on edge cases, but on common cases. What do you think about the right to a fair trial? Or the right to a speedy trial? Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? That's my problem with these libertarian-derived ideas about rights, they really only work out cleanly when you're talking about owning, trading, etc. For the very wide swath of human behavior that doesn't involve material possessions, what then?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? Arguably, you can view this as a negative right in the sense that it is conditional (it only applies if you are subjected to a trial, so no one has to provide anything to provide it, they just have to refrain from unfair trials.) Similarly, the right to a speedy trial again only applies when you are prosecuted -- so it can be met by refraining from prosecution when it cannot (or will not) be provided, rather than actively providing anything. That's not to say that I agree with the "all human rights are negative rights" argument, just that it is quite simple to recognize fair/speedy trial rights as negative rights.
Everlag 12y ago
A core human right indeed can't force someone to provide something but the wave of inflationary 'social justice' rights- like clean water or- do. Whether or not anyone will recognize or honor that right is an entirely different conversation.
OvidNaso 12y ago
Food, water, shelter. Don't think you can deny prisoners those and claim it's not a human right's issue.
baddox 12y ago
And what is being discussed is a person in prison having force used against them (that's what prison is, after all) to prevent them from accessing the Internet.
Retra 12y ago
Humans are social creatures. They require things that others must provide for basic functioning.
- javert 12y ago
  That's not correct. A human could live on an island. In society, we trade for what we need from others, which is different from saying we require that others provide us with things.
  - thatcat 12y ago
    Incorrect. In society, we require that restaurants that serve food also to also provide free water to anyone who asks because not everything should be commidified.
    - javert 12y ago
      In the US, all restaurants provide free water, voluntarily---it is not a law. It is a custom because we are not raging assholes. And if people are treated badly at a restaurant, they don't come back. I have never not been able to get free water in a restaurant in the US. Usually they pour you some without even asking, if there is table service. Only in Europe is there a perception that (a) businesspeople are raging assholes who (b) want to screw their customers even though doing so drives them away. So only in Europe are there actual laws forcing restaurants to give out water. I'm not even kidding, here is a source: https://www.restaurants.com/blog/are-restaurants-required-to-provide-water/#.VSIXAPYtiCg https://www.restaurants.com/blog/are-restaurants-required-to... You can easily find more sources if you just Google "Are US restaurants required to provide water." So yeah, your point is completley incorrect. Also, I am actually trying to intellectually engage with the issue, and it seems like you're just making a pithy comment, but maybe I'm just misreading your intention.
      - realusername 12y ago
        The article you linked is saying the opposite of what you are writing here, look at the second paragraph, some restaurants are indeed doing it. You need this consumers laws because otherwise some people are going to take advantage of it, that's how it works.
Frondo 12y ago
You're getting at the definition of human rights that comes from the libertarian movement. That definition is much narrower than most people are willing to accept, because most people aren't willing to accept the libertarian terms of what society does or is for.
- javert 12y ago
  Well, the modern libertarian movement actually got it from Ayn Rand, though the basic idea is older than Ayn Rand. I also got the idea from Ayn Rand. I'm not a libertarian.
  - hluska 12y ago
    Ayn Rand??? That idea is at least a couple of centuries older than Rand...
    - javert 12y ago
      Yes, but the modern libertarian movement is a direct outgrowth of Ayn Rand. Even though they dropped the non-political parts of her philosophy. Amazing how I get -4 for stating a historical fact. I did state that the idea is older than Ayn Rand.
- russell_h 12y ago
  This definition dates back far before the libertarian movement, at least to John Locke's Second Treatise (published in 1689).
  - nl 12y ago
    True, but Locke was very influential on the modern libeterian movement. I think the OPs point is correct.
    - innguest 12y ago
      The OP point is incorrect since it incorrectly states that Locke's definition of human rights came from Libertarianism. The OP therefore doesn't have a point since their argument relies on a false statement.
mbrock 12y ago
That's not a "nit pick," it's a political opinion, one contradicted by the customs of international law, the foundations of the United Nations, etc.
- javert 12y ago
  It's not an opinion, you just haven't learned to be objective about morality yet. Nor has the UN.
  - mbrock 12y ago
    Well, this isn't really the place for debunking ridiculous Randian notions of an "objective morality" that just happens to agree with the ideology of the ruling class.
    - javert 12y ago
      Nor is it the place to unnecessarily presume political opinions that are widely disagreed with, which is why I made my comment in the first place.
      - mbrock 12y ago
        Yeah, the ideology you've bought into is objective morality, and anything else is just questionable political opinions—gotcha. Good thing you found Leonard Peikoff; now you know the firm and irrefutable truths pertaining to the human condition and society. Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic. That being the case, you obviously aren't just trying to add some diversity to the conversation—you know you possess the final truth.
        javert 12y ago
        If somebody wants to bring up and talk about rights, I'll certainly add my two cents. And a lot of discussions were spawned off of my comment, with people talking about both sides, so I'd say I've used the site correctly and added value. And I've enjoyed the discussion. So what exactly is your problem? On the other hand, you are using sarcastic language and just "talking down" to me. Basically, light bullying. I'm referring to your last two comments. > Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic. How else would someone come up with any stance at all on rights (regardles of whether it agrees with mine)? I mean, you have to look at reality and you have to use logic. So I'm not sure what your point here is. (Actually, I do know your point, it's to try to just find some way to put me down and make me look small.)
nl 12y ago
The universal declaration of human rights has a number of things that could be classified as "things that must be provided". It's also the most accepted definition. Have a read of the section on economic and social rights: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural...
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Let me put this through a really quick acid test. Does a child have the right to be cared for? Someone must provide this care. Does a child have the right to be protected from prostitution? Someone must provide this protection and someone must provide for the needs that were driving the child into prostitution to begin with. To me it seems you can easily have rights that force someone else to do something.

by javert 12y ago

Sorry to nit pick but human rights protect you from having force used against you. You can't have a human right to something that someone else must provide. That would be a violation of their rights.

clamprecht 12y ago

I agree with you - people want to label everything as a "human right". I think Internet access should be a right, but I don't think it's a human right. I guess it all depends how one defines "human right".

SwellJoe 12y ago
What kind of "right" is it if not a human right? It can't be an animal right, as animals other than humans don't use the Internet, in general.
- clamprecht 12y ago
  It could be a Constitutional right, or a statutory right. For example, you have a right to a keep and bear arms (in the US), but that is a Constitutional right, not a human right.
  - SwellJoe 12y ago
    The Constitution defines what the founding fathers of the US considered human rights. I suppose statutory rights could fall under the category of "not human rights". And, I guess some folks consider some statutory rights to be directly contradictory to human rights (water shutoffs in Detroit or foreclosures of homes during the banking crisis, for example). What kind of right do you believe internet use would fall under?
    - clamprecht 12y ago
      In Reno vs. ACLU (1997), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Internet deserved free speech protection under the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Libertie... Some have argued that prohibiting Internet access to an otherwise free person (not a prisoner) is cruel and unusual punishment. In 1992 that was laughable. In 2015, it's much less laughable.
- vacri 12y ago
  A 'human right' is a right that every human on the globe should possess. The right to vote in a democracy is not a human right - only citizens of that democracy can vote in it. It's reasonable to say that French citizens have the right to vote in France, but not that the entire globes should, for example.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I'm not sure if you're trying to play language games to be obtuse for some reason, but the right to be involved in one's government absolutely is a human right. To say "the right to vote in a democracy is not a human right" is arguably not false, just going on narrow definitions of "vote" and "democracy," but the right to be involved in one's government? Oh yes. Just because it is denied so many does not mean it is not still a human right.
    - vacri 12y ago
      ... you're saying that people who aren't citizens of France should be able to vote in French governmental elections? You're opposing "only citizens of that democracy can vote in it"? Why is it a human right for a Russian or a Fijian or an Argentinian to vote in the French elections? I can't make out what your problem with my comment is.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Wait, so you're saying... you don't disagree that all people have a human right to participate in their own government? That you only don't think all people should have the right to participate in all governments?
        vacri 12y ago
        Eh? I didn't say not in their own government. I said that people who are not French citizens can't vote in the French elections, and it's not a violation of human rights that they can't. I didn't say that Russians shouldn't be able to vote in Russia. Stop strawmanning my words. Edit: to be clearer - being able to get involved in your own government is a human right. Being able to vote in the French elections is a civil right, reserved to French citizens. All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.
javert 12y ago
I think the best term is "individual right," and the term "human right" should be abandoned. The original proponents of rights treated them as "individual rights." Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights." But for the sake of this conversation, I just went with "human right," accepting it as valid and not getting into all the mess I just talked about. By the way, a Constitutional right, ideally, is just an individual right that has been written specifically into the Constitution.
- mbrock 12y ago
  Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights." That's a tendentious misrepresentation, bordering on incendiary, not at all suitable for this discussion forum. The human rights movement has roots in the Red Cross, the Geneva convention, and the post-war efforts to create international peace. International conventions on human rights are not primarily used to "violate individual rights." Yes, they are used to make claims for the positive duties of states and societies to care for the suffering. When water is available, none should be excluded; when water is needed, that is a human rights issue, and measures should be taken. (To make a counterpoint, the "individual" rights—of which you speak from a libertarian or Randian perspective—are not really all that individual. That's why the rhetoric of individual rights is so often used by those in favor of the rights of corporations. Randians equivocate the notions of the individual and the corporation for ideological reasons.)
  - innguest 12y ago
    I don't know about "Randians" but libertarians in general are against corporations as they are a product of the State. Individual rights are not losing their credibility because some illegitimate market rigging is allowed by the State.
    - javert 12y ago
      The proper term is "Objectivists," not "Randians." "Randians" is insulting (that is why mbrock is using it).

xnull2guest 12y ago

Negative/positive rights, yeah. It's gotten really complicated recently, though, hasn't it? It's pretty hard to provide your own water. Domestically and globally (Nestle and China each own close to half of the world's potable water). So at some point, even where someone 'owns' something - withholding it will cause people to clamor about their right to e.g. water (case in point the Water Crisis in Detroit). The point of the parent is that access to the internet is becoming so much part of life that it's starting to seem like a cultural and practical necessity.

javert 12y ago
The Nestle water situation doesn't actually pose any problem for the negative/positive rights distinction. I'm not familiar with the exact legal situation in parts of South America where that is an issue, but basically, if it's illegal to draw water from water sources and purify it yourself and sell it to others (perhaps via a municipal water system like we do in the civilized world), property rights have been misunderstood and misapplied.
zanny 12y ago
That is the state guaranteeing access to water. It isn't picking a guy out of the crowd, pointing a gun at his head, and telling him to work the well and give everyone else water. States usually reimburse private utility companies, or run them themselves. The superposter means, I think, that you cannot have a right that deprives someone else of their freedom. If nobody wanted to work at the water treatment plant, the government is hard pressed to compel anyone to work there within any sane persons logic. They would have to offer higher pay until someone did the job, but they couldn't point a gun at someone and make them do it. Unless they were a prisoner, or maybe a soldier.

wyager 12y ago

>Sorry to nit pick but human rights protect you from having force used against you. Right - people should be protected from the government using force to lock them in a cage without communication to the outside world.

a1369209993 12y ago

Air, water, food, heating and/or cooling as relevant. Just to name the most blatantly obvious counterexamples to your assertion.

zanny 12y ago
How are any of those human rights? If you are in the woods without water, someone is obliged to bring you some? If you are walking around on a winters eve and are cold, someone must give you a blanket? You can claim that the state will provide you things if you are without them, but that is more an offer on their part (albeit using coerced tax dollars) than violence upon others to force them to work for you without compensation, as the superposter implies. He means you cannot be guaranteed something that means someone else is compelled to provide it. The state as a whole could be compelled to give you something by its own laws, but they can't force an individual by mandate to do work, outside the already outlined exception to slavery.
- Frondo 12y ago
  I find it interesting that you picked one example that involves stepping outside the bounds of human civilization (e.g. walking around in the woods) to shore up your argument--as if we should all nod along and say yes, how silly! access to drinking water, a human right?? What puzzles me about this whole "a human right cannot be something that compels someone to do something" argument is how it breaks down not just on edge cases, but on common cases. What do you think about the right to a fair trial? Or the right to a speedy trial? Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? That's my problem with these libertarian-derived ideas about rights, they really only work out cleanly when you're talking about owning, trading, etc. For the very wide swath of human behavior that doesn't involve material possessions, what then?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Is the right to a fair trial not actually a human right, since the judicial system is (theoretically) compelled to be honest? Arguably, you can view this as a negative right in the sense that it is conditional (it only applies if you are subjected to a trial, so no one has to provide anything to provide it, they just have to refrain from unfair trials.) Similarly, the right to a speedy trial again only applies when you are prosecuted -- so it can be met by refraining from prosecution when it cannot (or will not) be provided, rather than actively providing anything. That's not to say that I agree with the "all human rights are negative rights" argument, just that it is quite simple to recognize fair/speedy trial rights as negative rights.

Everlag 12y ago

A core human right indeed can't force someone to provide something but the wave of inflationary 'social justice' rights- like clean water or- do. Whether or not anyone will recognize or honor that right is an entirely different conversation.

OvidNaso 12y ago

Food, water, shelter. Don't think you can deny prisoners those and claim it's not a human right's issue.

baddox 12y ago

And what is being discussed is a person in prison having force used against them (that's what prison is, after all) to prevent them from accessing the Internet.

Retra 12y ago

Humans are social creatures. They require things that others must provide for basic functioning.

javert 12y ago
That's not correct. A human could live on an island. In society, we trade for what we need from others, which is different from saying we require that others provide us with things.
- thatcat 12y ago
  Incorrect. In society, we require that restaurants that serve food also to also provide free water to anyone who asks because not everything should be commidified.
  - javert 12y ago
    In the US, all restaurants provide free water, voluntarily---it is not a law. It is a custom because we are not raging assholes. And if people are treated badly at a restaurant, they don't come back. I have never not been able to get free water in a restaurant in the US. Usually they pour you some without even asking, if there is table service. Only in Europe is there a perception that (a) businesspeople are raging assholes who (b) want to screw their customers even though doing so drives them away. So only in Europe are there actual laws forcing restaurants to give out water. I'm not even kidding, here is a source: https://www.restaurants.com/blog/are-restaurants-required-to-provide-water/#.VSIXAPYtiCg https://www.restaurants.com/blog/are-restaurants-required-to... You can easily find more sources if you just Google "Are US restaurants required to provide water." So yeah, your point is completley incorrect. Also, I am actually trying to intellectually engage with the issue, and it seems like you're just making a pithy comment, but maybe I'm just misreading your intention.
    - realusername 12y ago
      The article you linked is saying the opposite of what you are writing here, look at the second paragraph, some restaurants are indeed doing it. You need this consumers laws because otherwise some people are going to take advantage of it, that's how it works.

Frondo 12y ago

You're getting at the definition of human rights that comes from the libertarian movement. That definition is much narrower than most people are willing to accept, because most people aren't willing to accept the libertarian terms of what society does or is for.

javert 12y ago
Well, the modern libertarian movement actually got it from Ayn Rand, though the basic idea is older than Ayn Rand. I also got the idea from Ayn Rand. I'm not a libertarian.
- hluska 12y ago
  Ayn Rand??? That idea is at least a couple of centuries older than Rand...
  - javert 12y ago
    Yes, but the modern libertarian movement is a direct outgrowth of Ayn Rand. Even though they dropped the non-political parts of her philosophy. Amazing how I get -4 for stating a historical fact. I did state that the idea is older than Ayn Rand.
russell_h 12y ago
This definition dates back far before the libertarian movement, at least to John Locke's Second Treatise (published in 1689).
- nl 12y ago
  True, but Locke was very influential on the modern libeterian movement. I think the OPs point is correct.
  - innguest 12y ago
    The OP point is incorrect since it incorrectly states that Locke's definition of human rights came from Libertarianism. The OP therefore doesn't have a point since their argument relies on a false statement.

mbrock 12y ago

That's not a "nit pick," it's a political opinion, one contradicted by the customs of international law, the foundations of the United Nations, etc.

javert 12y ago
It's not an opinion, you just haven't learned to be objective about morality yet. Nor has the UN.
- mbrock 12y ago
  Well, this isn't really the place for debunking ridiculous Randian notions of an "objective morality" that just happens to agree with the ideology of the ruling class.
  - javert 12y ago
    Nor is it the place to unnecessarily presume political opinions that are widely disagreed with, which is why I made my comment in the first place.
    - mbrock 12y ago
      Yeah, the ideology you've bought into is objective morality, and anything else is just questionable political opinions—gotcha. Good thing you found Leonard Peikoff; now you know the firm and irrefutable truths pertaining to the human condition and society. Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic. That being the case, you obviously aren't just trying to add some diversity to the conversation—you know you possess the final truth.
      - javert 12y ago
        If somebody wants to bring up and talk about rights, I'll certainly add my two cents. And a lot of discussions were spawned off of my comment, with people talking about both sides, so I'd say I've used the site correctly and added value. And I've enjoyed the discussion. So what exactly is your problem? On the other hand, you are using sarcastic language and just "talking down" to me. Basically, light bullying. I'm referring to your last two comments. > Reading your profile, it's clear that you claim to be able to correctly derive your stance against human rights from nothing but "sense perception of reality" combined with Objectivist logic. How else would someone come up with any stance at all on rights (regardles of whether it agrees with mine)? I mean, you have to look at reality and you have to use logic. So I'm not sure what your point here is. (Actually, I do know your point, it's to try to just find some way to put me down and make me look small.)

nl 12y ago

The universal declaration of human rights has a number of things that could be classified as "things that must be provided". It's also the most accepted definition. Have a read of the section on economic and social rights: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural...

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

Let me put this through a really quick acid test. Does a child have the right to be cared for? Someone must provide this care. Does a child have the right to be protected from prostitution? Someone must provide this protection and someone must provide for the needs that were driving the child into prostitution to begin with. To me it seems you can easily have rights that force someone else to do something.