"Human rights" is an amorphous, completely fluid term. It can stand for anything. It therefore defines nothing.

"Right" is a moral and political term. I can only define it Objectively. Rights are the powers of action any individual still keeps even after joining a society. But the United Nations, in claiming to define "rights," actually have created a charter of needs and allowances. A society that pledges to fulfill needs does not grant rights. It only grants allowances. It allows you to keep only what you need--and no one person can judge his need or his ability. Such a society then needs a dictator, to judge needs and allocate resources.

Ridiculous, of course--because someone has to produce wealth. One does not pick it off a bush. Inevitably those who find themselves giving more than they're getting, will leave. Absolutely everyone has his price....

" yours may be getting high,"
Do I have a (the) right to opt out of paying for another's rehab?
If yes, then do religious organizations have the right to opt out of paying for the same or abortion, contraceptives, rehab, etc?
If no, then am I now enslaved to earn and hand over my value for others to walk a tight rope?
Now, if I have any "right" not to be involved in another person's actions, then should I? Why?

The funny part is not that they were 'taken away', but stolen illegally.

Example: your Right to Life gives you the right to exchange part of your life for goods [food, shelter, education, clothes, wealth..etcetera]. This 'Earned income' is not to be taxed, in the U.S.A., except in times of dire need such as time of war and only then by 'capitation' [apportionment which means each person pays the exact same amount of the tax ie: $5 each].

Now how it was stolen; People claim it was the 16th Amendment, but that is wrong. The 16th Amendment "gave no new power to tax" (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)).

In fact over 28 SCOTUS cases say the same thing all the way up to 2011 (last I checked), as do the Congressional Records of the 16th Amendment debates and the letter's of the Secretary of the Treasury to POTUS and or Congress (most famous is the 1939 letter to FDR). In fact, the 16th Amendment was written and adopted to end the error of SCOTUS in the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) case which placed 'unearned' income into the category of 'earned' income.

THINK OF THE 1895 POLLOCK DECISION AS THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT A "FLAT" OR "FAIR" TAX.

This mistake by SCOTUS caused taxes to only be collected by 'capitation' meaning the wealthiest only needed to pay what the poorest could afford; ie: James Mellon made $120,000,000.00 in 1904, but only paid $100 in federal taxes because the poorest families could bearly afford the $100, but had to pay it. This created a huge expansion of wealth to the wealthy and no chance to gain wealth to the middle and lower class.

The 16th Amendment in its wording; "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOMES, from WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." THIS WORDING WAS NEEDED DUE TO IT BEING IN THE POLLOCK SCOTUS OPINION IN ORDER TO CANCEL AND PLACE 'UNEARNED' INCOME BACK INTO ITS PROPER EXCISE (IRS TAXABLE) TAX PLACE.

SO BLAMING THE 16TH AMENDMENT'S INCORRECT IT LEGALLY CAN'T BE BLAMED

The theft came in and about 1940 when the U.S. decided to join the war [WWII], they started plans for people to 'voluntarily' claim their 'earned' income as taxable with 'unearned' income..

You see the law never changed, the Constitutional requirement for 'earned' income to only be taxable by 'apportionment' never changed..just the misuse and understanding of the phase: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment.."

I have these questions which should help you understand:

First let's look at "INCOME"; according to IRS code, business and banking it is profit.

1) when you work [AKA labor, exchange part of your 'lifetime' for money] how much is profit; SCOTUS said in several cases "..without knowing cost there can be no profit..", so what is an hour of your life worth?

2) Is everyone's life the same worth; Brain Surgeons have more knowledge and intricate abilities others do not have the same with Athletes, Businesspersons, Pilots and so forth all the way down to a handicapped person [becareful here Stephen Dawkins is a handicapped person as well]. Question: if everyone is different and each has a different worth, how can the IRS code tabulate every individual as the same worth?

3) If you by the United States very first law "..Have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.."; how can that 'RIGHT' be effected by taxation?

Now taxation is not the only theft those corrupt power hungry people in the federal government have perpetrated on us; but, it is a major one!

I only hope those that read this begin to awaken from the hypnotises they are under and begin to study, learn and share their new found knowledge to help the people living in the 50 Nations (States) that make up the republic of These United States of America [the original way it was penned was 'these' due to them being separate sovereign 'nations'] once again free of the enslavement of an oppressive government holding them down

Progressive Semantics...other than the kakistocracies connotation, theoelectrically there should be no difference.

So human rights and individual rights are not the same? The question then becomes do any living creatures have rights other than humans? Rand has pages and pages of quotables on individual rights. As to human rights, her concern revolves around human rights VS property rights. As much as I'd like to proclaim that animals have rights and should be treated as we would treat one another, that is not possible. Sorry, but your pet dog or cat has no rights. Only humans have them. However, as humans, we have the ability to defend our pets, as we would any property. And along with that ability comes certain rules. Property, like say, a car, the rules must be followed responsibly for the defense to work. A car owner cannot expect to be recompensed if he was driving recklessly, and a dog owner must face consequences if his dog hurts or damages while off the leash or not properly confined. So, all rights are human rights, and all human rights are individual rights.

Further, there is no such thing as mob rights or group rights, because every group is comprised of individuals. Just because a bunch of individuals get together, it doesn't mean that they now have more rights that were not available to them as individuals. For some reason, destruction of property, or hurting a fellow human are more forgivable in a mob setting is pure nonsense.

See my post below. Rand said it clearly there is no such thing as human rights. Rights are a man made political concept which serve as the legal foundation for the laws of a country. The laws of a county are not to protect humanity but the citizens of that country as they agreed to and accepted citizenship under those laws. .

What about the "?" rights of a 30-foot-long carnosaur looking lizard who communicates "I come in peace" telepathically and has just beamed down from a humongous space ship that hovers in plain sight over the Brooklyn Bridge? (or also intelligent enough not to hover over the White House).
Sorry, just burning to ask.

Individual rights, as all rights, are created by a society as the foundation of laws. The concept of rights comes from idea of individual sovereignty which is the political concept which in turn comes from free will or the necessity of each person to choose the productive acts for their survival. Property rights come from the necessity to keep the results of your productive effort which is the result of your free will as a sovereign being.
There are no human rights except it is useful to say that all humans have individual sovereignty and hence should have their rights protected. The key figure is Locke then the founders especially Monroe and then Rand.

Incorrect...You have the 'right' to drive an automobile, but you can lose it by breaking the laws that govern that RIGHT

You have "..The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..", but what does that mean? It starts off equal, Right to Life, and then becomes different for each of us; liberty to live alone without civilization, or decide to live in civilization and abide by its laws and the 'Happiness'; yours may be getting high, or playing video games while mine is creating, repairing and studying...each is different, each is your choice.

I would say they are the same thing, like existence and identity, but that they speak more precisely to different aspects of it. Human rights specifically, by its name, implies that all humans have these rights. Individual rights clearly defines that rights are not collective to all humans, but that they can only apply to individuals.

The main confusion is in the inaccurate use of the English language; 'Individual' rights are in fact 'Human' rights; rights given from your creator at conception.

The mistake is when the uneducated or purposefully deceitful people use incorrect words which confuse and causes issues.
In the case of your posted question to should correctly be stated What is the difference between Individual rights and 'civil' rights. This makes clear that Individual rights are from 'birth' and Civil rights are from civilization AKA society/government; examples of a civil right would be the right to drive a car on public roads as long as you 'buckle up', don't speed, get the vehicle inspected and pay the proper fuel and other excise taxes.

Example of an Individual right would be the right to decide what you use the moments of your life for [Right to Life]; you could use some hours of your life in order to earn wealth, get physically fit or playing video games..every moment you exchange that part of your life for what you are doing..like right now; I am giving part of my life away sharing knowledge.

This Wiki seems to define the difference between individual rights and group rights, which the term "human rights" is just one version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...

"In Western discourse, individual rights are often associated with political and economic freedom, whereas group rights are associated with social control."

In the name of human rights, your individual sovereignty shall be stripped! We'll show you the real meaning of human rights! Control and control and control.

Ironic, isn't it?

Solver, good point. But I think Human Rights are defined as standards for foreign countries that don't meet American standards. It's a watered down and sugared up kool aid kind of individual rights. It's the liberal error of extending individual rights to economic results. It's a critical base from which the new left errs and it's defined quite well in the new book from Yaron Brook.

I am reminded of an incident, somewhere out west I think, where a forest fire was contained with the belief that another load of water from a certain body of water (a lake I think) would be delivered. The original crew had to get to another fire somewhere. Some local politician denied the helicopter permission to use water from that lake to save some microbe of some kind. The crew that was left to finish the job perished in the fire. Had the helicopter been able to use the lake water, there would have been no deaths. So, human rights should outweigh any conflict like this. Individual rights were granted at birth. They outweigh everything.

One is rights by nature, the other its rights by gov't. One only requires force to keep, the other requires force to get.

There are only real rights. The rest is a conceptual perversion.

One is an accurate use of the English language the other is a contradiction.