How about this- Whoever feels his rights have been violated hires the government courts and police to enforce them at the expense of the person wanting redress if he loses, or at the expense of the perpetrator if he wins.

Individual rights impose a negative duty: keep your hands off me and mine.

The mis-named "rights" collectivist politicians tout, impose positive duties: you must provide such-a-thing.

"The man in Seat Five, Car Number Six, was a worker who believed he had 'a right' to a job, whether any given employer wished to provide it or not." Come on, you know where that came from.

Now someone has noticed whether anyone has a duty to provide public security. Not quite. Rather, Thomas Jefferson said: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....[W]henever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, in such form...as will seem to them most conducive to their safety and happiness."

Next question: what sort of government would you prefer?

Nope.

The only individual right which imposes a duty on others is the right to a trial by jury.

Everything else that government imposes on the citizenry is overreach.

Not sure they always do, but depending on what you think you have a right to, they can impose a duty on others.

For example, if you believe that you have a right to health care, then you most certainly impose a duty on others. It forces a doctor to see you; it forces pharmaceutical companies to provide you with any medications you need; it forces medical equipment suppliers to make equipment available to you; it forces technicians to operate the machines to run the tests; etc.

There are no duties. "The meaning of the term 'duty' is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dut...

The principle of individual rights requires only that the rights of others be respected if you expect to live in a civilized society, and that requires a government limited to protecting rights. Rights are a moral concept, not a duty. The civil rights protected by government should be based on and implement rights identified philosophically. If someone violates others' rights, he will be treated accordingly, but their are no duties..

I have wondered about this. Having rights widely respected seems to rest on having a criminal justice system to stop thugs from denying people rights. Does that mean we have a "duty" to provide that system? I don't know the answer.

Individual rights (as the word rights had been used until FDR) only impose a NEGATIVE duty... to not get in the way of another individual's free choice.

Now this statement,
“There is no difference between a right and an entitlement.”

It’s interesting to see how the left has been programmed.

Walter Williams talks about rights,
https://youtu.be/nrT0kBeld3Q

So the question really might be, “Is respect for or non-interference of an individual right a duty on others?”

In another forum this statement was made,
“It is impossible to extrapolate a right from the duty of the right.”

Then there was this statement,
“As individuals within a society, we have no absolute rights. The statement, in and of itself, is not contrary to, but, complimentary of the philosophy and foundation of our government, in the belief of one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

I asked for more clarification on this.