Depends. If it's a "negative right", then you are correct. For example, the right not to be assaulted just means others refrain. However, a "positive right" means that somebody else has to take responsibility for it. For example, a right to education means that somebody else is obliged (perhaps by coercion) to provide that for you.

@Incajackson you've illustrated my point. There's no such thing as a "positive right". What you are referring to is called a "privilege".

If education was a right it would be provided unless prevented.

@Mike9465 Fair enough. I think we're just dealing with semantics here.

@Incajackson it's more than semantics. It's linguistic drift, or worse, willful distortion of meanings. Kind of like all those who insist on referring to the United States as a "democracy".

By the mistaken definition of "rights", the implication is that said rights are provided rather than merely protected by the government.

If an entity grants a right it can just as well take it away, which means it's no right at all, but a privilege, licensed by the grantor.

Rights cannot be given, nor when denied are they destroyed. I have a right to freedom of conscience in worship. Any attempt to prevent me from exercising that right, no matter how successful, doesn't make that right go away, nor does my exercise of that right infringe on anyone else or diminish their rights.

Declaring a right to a good or service provided by another is the sole province of the slave owner.

@Mike9465 Why do you think the US is not a democracy?

@Incajackson because it is a republic.

@Incajackson they are not the same thing. Not even close.

A democracy offers zero protection for the minority. Every decision is made by 50% + 1 vote.

A representative republic protects the minority.

Democracy is the most unstable form of government ever invented. (See the French Revolution) It always, and often quickly, devolves into mob rule anarchy, leaving the population begging for an authoritarian dictator to "fix" things.

Our republic, on the other hand, has survived almost 250 years, even while under near constant assault.

@Mike9465 Are you saying that countries that identify as republics (presumably as opposed to monarchies) are therefore not democracies? For example: France or Germany?

@Mike9465 Hmm...it seems to me that you are conflating a couple of different things. Democracy doesn't determine the system of voting. It literally means power in the hands of the people. Decisions made by 50% + 1 is majority voting or in UK parlance "first past the post" and could, as you say, not protect the minority. However, another voting system is proportional representation (as exists in many European countries and lobbied for in the UK) in which all people feel represented. However, both voting systems count as democratic as opposed to martial law or dictatorships.

I regard the UK as a democracy (Home of the mother of parliaments) and I'm not aware of any "mob rule anarchy" in our history since the English Civil War 1642 - 1649. Even then, "mob rule anarchy" wouldn't accurately describe what actually happened.

@Incajackson it seems you are conflating "democracy" with "democratic". A republic uses democratic methods, but is not a democracy.

As for the UK, last I checked, it's a parliamentary monarchy under a constitution of sorts.

@Mike9465 We usually refer to our system as "constitutional monarchy". It came about as a result of the English Civil War when "the divine right of kings" was rejected. Nowadays, our queen basically performs symbolic functions. For example, every new bill that has successfully gone through both houses of parliament has to receive "royal assent", and the queen actually signs the paper, before it can be implemented into law. In reality, I don't think it is ever refused! However, the queen still has the ultimate prerogative of "proroguing parliament" (dissolving it). Again, it's never been done in modern history although one member of parliament did advocate for it the other day as a way out of the Brexit mess we're currently in! Interesting times!

@Incajackson as an anglophile and a History teacher I am somewhat familiar with post-Cromwellian England.

Looks like you're heading for a second Rump Parliament....LOL. But seriously, I wish you well in extricating yourselves from the disastrous mess the EU has become.

Collectivism never benefits those who vote for it...at least, not for long.

He governs best who governs least.