None. There are no rights to anything that MUST be provided by another. There is no right to enslave another.

Smoke eaters, like soldiers, deserve our full support for the job they do. Cannon fodder has no brains. You can't say that about these brave men and women.

Yes, I agree on Bork. He just seemed off to me.

The only things that government can do to protect rights is to first get out of the way and second use force against those who initiate the use of force.
The human rights problem reminds me of the confirmation hearing for judge Bork where he was being questioned by Biden. Bork's answer about rights made me think "oh shades of the Magna Carta" because he seems to have believed that rights are granted by the government. Biden, at the time, seemed to have a firmer grasp as to the nature of rights. He does not show that grasp very often.

Now it's 4. Proof there is a sense of humor even in the philosophy category of the Gulch.

The phrase "human rights" is entirely political.
It means someone is about to ask you to pay for another persons basic needs.

You're correct in the ideal and Objectively, but at least half of the USA population currently subsists on, relies on, and demands 'human rights' granted by the gov't they elect at all levels. We must remember that when we're discussing rights, that 'politicspeak', has been in effect long enough that at least half now understand and believe that human rights as defined by FDR and the UN are granted from their gov't and actually argue that the founders really meant that in the 'General Welfare' clause.

Our ancestors actually ceded natural and/or individual rights when they began relying on a written document and votes to hold gov't in line, instead of relying on themselves, individually and as a group to maintain their rights. Words on paper, votes on a ballot, a minority philosophy vs no philosophy, or an oath at election are not sufficient defense against those that seek power or those that seek equality at the finish line rather than equality at the starting line with gov't force against others in order to get them.

And to protect them...

There is no "right" that requires involuntary servitude.
It is an intentional misnomer- an abuse and distortion of language.

Rights by government is a contradiction in terms just as are government science or government economics.
Government has no power to instill rights, only to limit them.

While hanging on a bush that is no ones property, it is not wealth, but when you gain it as your property by picking it, it becomes part of your wealth, no matter how small the gain, even a single berry.
As government officials, there are only permissions given to them by laws. They still retain individual rights but are restrained by the laws as to what the permissions will allow them. They should be firmly leashed to the law as government officials and workers including police and military and courts.

:)

My 0 has become a 3 at least at this point.
Came back to look thinking it would by now be minus something.
Guess I'll forget about fetching Brenda Lee to sing "I'm Sorry" from Youtube.
I'm in one of my old dino Andy Kaufman kinda moods today.

Very nice.

Long winded is OK as long as the long has something to say. Since only humans can have rights, I think of both expressions as being the same. Congratulations on being a successful debater. I participated in many debates, but they were rarely formal and often carried a hint of violence just below the surface. I stopped after a while since I suffer (or possibly enjoy) a short attention span and get bored easily after covering the same topic endlessly.

succinct, acerbic and appropriate;;; Thanks! -- j
.

the term "human rights" is being perverted, as you
point out with o'care. . it should be the sum of individual
rights -- with only the pronoun change from his or hers
to "theirs." . the purveyors of this servitude tripe should
be jailed. -- j
.

Check out philosophercat's reply: "Rand said clearly that there is no such thing as human rights."
I may have a 0 but theoretical visiting space aliens still have their individual rights
Don't no one tell me an non-human visit won't come someday.

i was a member of National Debate Society in high school and college...my children also participated in debate their high school years and i served as judge for their debates (there were usually 20+ schools represented in any debate weekend and rules prohibited me from judging any debates that involved debaters from my children's school)...i also majored in philosophy in college...i have found that the first rule was always "define or be defined"...the battle was always defining the words and rules used in the actual debate...if i won the pre-debate, i usually won the debate in short order...
i always won using "individual" vs "human" in the pre-debate...

sorry to be so long-winded...

Why?

A human right is whatever a politician says it is to the leeches they want votes from. Individual rights come from the reasoning that all men do it naturally. Self defense, etc.

would consider changing "human" rights in your 1st paragraph to "individual" rights???

LOL...not a human; but this is where the Founders words ring especially true:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.."

As well I would point you to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they wrote it to ensure you could protect your Rights; or die defending the right

In Short YES you have that RIGHT if you so choose; Madonna and many other "ex-pats" have exercised that very right, as well I would point you to reading "Atlas Shrugged"; you have heard of 'Galt's Gulch'; it is the perfect example. But, if you 'DECIDE' to live in a civilization that requires you to work for the common collective then you have put less worth on your 'human' [aka Individual] right then that of 'Civil' right.

As the Founders correctly penned with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,.."

If your 'pursuit of happiness' means giving to those that haven't given anything to you in exchange that is your 'RIGHT'