Concerning the definition of Human Rights....
My own definition of a right is something that people have, that is not given by another, is not taken from another, but is something that is born in all human beings, without stipulating conditions (e.g. race, gender).
As I see it, a number of the UN's list of human rights require that governments take (by fiat if necessary) from those who have to provide for those who do not. These make it my and your responsibility to provide something to others which implies they don't already have the right or are not born with the right. A person may not have a thing... Does that make it your responsibility to see to it that they get it? (E.g. housing, medicine, education, childcare, etc.)
I think not. Let's discuss this.
Imo a "human right" is that which every human possesses without some arbitrary or outside imposition - as you had written, something that is born in all human beings. everything else is merely a benefit (or detriment, as the case may be) of outside issues - gender, race, status in society, or opportunity etc.
some have argued that it is a person's right to have adequate food or housing or education. i disagree. in the globalist's utopia that might be desirable but, as we all know - there are no guarantees in life. the simple act of living implies having to accept certain risks that follow upon that, and if you can't or won't work, for example, to get food you either die or take from another who will work for theirs.
An excellent question to debate. It's the sort of question where I think I have a succinct answer but as I think about it I feel that "succinctness" slipping between my fingers. For me I have come to the conclusion that a "right" is something inherent in individuality that does not require coercion of others. I freely admit that this needs refinement. I will be very interested to read what others have to say.
You won't get an argument from me. I couldn't have said it better, or as succinctly. Nobody has a right to the fruits of my labor or my life. Just because a majority votes to take something from somebody, and give it to someone else, doesn't give the theft any moral authority. Taking a sandwich from a deli without paying for it, then giving it to a homeless person, is still theft. Distinguishing goods and services as "rights" is a dangerous trend, that when previously attempted, was cause for great amount of death and human suffering.
Only if you believe in scarcity, which has as much substance as most currencies these days.
@HollyLouise Something needs to be taken from someone to be given to someone else only if you believe in the false construct of scarcity.
@HollyLouise So your position, "As I see it, a number of the UN's list of human rights require that governments take (by fiat if necessary) from those who have to provide for those who do not." is also based on that same lie.
So just take a big Marks-a-lot to everything after 21?