Hmmm ..... it has nothing to do with what I do or don't like. It is merely my attempt to codify what I believe, and to be able to accurately explain it in terms that are readily understood.

Some political policies are supported by claims that "all humans have a right to <fill in the blank>." Without having a precise definition of human rights, how is one to deny that anything could potentially be a human right? Is it based solely on the emotion of the individual? I think not.

I believe establishing an exact definition of rights is beneficial precisely because I seek specificity in language. A list of purported rights is by nature not comprehensive, nor does it clearly specify everything that is a right, and everything that is not.

I believe that I have hit upon a definition of rights that seems to quite precisely delineate what does, and does not, constitute a right. As I have not seen the concept addressed in these terms before, I posted it here seeking feedback on this definition. I would also welcome yours.

@jneedler I already gave you feedback, and I refer you to the document where it is already clearly defined. You might be surprised just how comprehensive it is. It is a longer read than replies on a forum, though, yet for some very strange reason, people prefer to see out answers from random strangers than go directly to source documents that are readily available. To each their own.

@Catherine You recommended a document that does not provide feedback on my definition, nor does it provide its own definition. What it does provide is a list of things it considers to be rights, without any logical explanation of why some things are rights, and some things aren't.

Here is a definition of an automobile:
n. A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.

Here is a list of automobiles:

1. Honda Accord
2. Toyota Tercel
3. Dodge Ram

See the difference? The document you referenced included a finite list, without providing any logical reasoning for why some things are rights, but not everything.

If I missed their definition of rights in the document, I would appreciate it if you quote it so that I can locate that passage and examine it more thoroughly.

@jneedler You think you don't owe anyone, anything, why do you think I owe you an education if you choose not to seek it out yourself?

@Catherine That's rude and inaccurate.

I looked up the document you cited, skimmed it, and did a word search for "definition" and "define," both of which returned zero results in that document. I think that's reasonable eveidence to support my conclusion that the document doesn't attempt to define rights.

But I even went one step further, and allowed for the possibility that I had missed it somehow. I asked you to post a quote specifically so I could locate and examine that passage.

Of course, nobody would be able locate something that's not present in the document you mentioned.

Do you honestly think that, aside from referencing a document that doesn't address my original question, any of your replies on this thread can be construed as useful, topical, or informative?

Good day.

Thankfully we have Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, I can not imagine living under that crap. I point specifically to articles 22 - 27 pure Socialist BS.

@BrunosDad Severely faulty premise. Do better.

@Catherine I would have to have evidence of a faulty premise.

@BrunosDad I understand most people have no idea how any of the systems in place actually work. To just throw socialism as a label at something because you don't understand it, but automatically think you don't like it does not actually make it socialism. Therefore, faulty premise. Research and learn the truth about the illusion of scarcity, and be free from fear of people having more or less than you. None of it is yours, anyhow.

@Catherine I am very educated in how the systems work and have a full understanding of how they work. Yes, I abhor anything socialist. I will fully admit it as I find the concept revolting. Yes, I am well aware of the theory of scarcity principle as an economic model. It works perfectly and is one of the reasons that I believe in free markets.

Here is a very simplistic but also fairly accurate description of the differences between capitalism and socialism. Do you agree with its premise?
[businessdictionary.com]

It's impossible to discuss this further when you believe you know how things work, and believe in scarcity. Makes everything past your faulty premise a mute point. Wish you well.

You may be right about "any noun can be made into a verb," and I think that those verbs would be included as rights. I still don't think that will make the nouns themselves rights.

Let's consider "housing," for example, since it is one of the most fundamental of human necessities. I would say that any verb you want to pair with 'housing' (such as own, build, purchase, sell, donate, receive, lease, etc) would be a right that any individual has <with the caveat that actions which deprive another individual of rights are immoral and illegal, thus those actions are not rights>.

Therein lies the contradiction between rights as verbs as opposed to nouns. In order for an individual to have a noun, they must either produce it themselves, or it must come from somebody else who rightfully owns it. Since everybody has the inherent right to own things (nouns) and cannot be denied that right, we cannot force individuals to give up their 'thing' (whatever noun is in question) in order to provide that 'thing' to somebody else.

Thoughts?

@jneedler I think I am going to use this the next time I get in a Single Payer Healthcare discussion. I have a hard time understanding how someone feels that they should have free access to my labor as a physician working for in a private office. Using your explanation I own my labor and can not be made to give it up. Unless, I choose to work in the public sector such as a "Public" School Teacher or Military Doctor.

I'm not a Dr. I'm an Accountant just to be honest.

@BrunosDad your comment of "I own my own labor and cannot be [morally] made to give it up" is the heart of the argument for Capitalism over any form of Collectivism (Communism, any Socialism, etc). I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

IF one believes that rights are verbs, not nouns

and IF one believes that government's purpose is to protect the rights of individuals

THEN it necessarily follows that government's job is to prevent, as much as possible, the forced redistribution of nouns from some individuals, to others.