Replies

‎"This expectation of fundamental entitlements is what we talk about when we talk about human rights. "

Here he confuses the actual meaning of "natural rights" and builds upon a faulty premise. Our fundamental human right is the right to exist, that is the foundation upon which any other right is to be built, not on any type of "entitlement" or redistributive (theft and slavery) scam. Because we have a right to exist, we have the right to conduct ourselves in any fashion we desire as long as we do not prevent another from doing so. We have the right to improve our lot through our own innovation and work and we have a right to defend our property. No person has the right to anything owned by another person.

The fact that governments do not recognize natural rights does not mean they do not exist. Natural rights are synonymous with existence and demand freedom. The only other option is some form of slavery. If a man has no right to existence and the product of his mind; if the government is the final arbiter of possession and property, then man is a slave to that government. This has been the case for most of history and is the case today. The founders of this country recognized man's natural rights and sought to build a nation that recognized every man's right to exist.

The U.N. "declaration of human rights" is an attempt to confuse the subject. Our natural rights are the right to exist, the right to be free to live our lives, the right to property and the right to defend ourselves. No thinking person can attach the monicker of "natural right" to the entitlement of a commodity at the expense of another, the premise violates man's natural rights.

Housing is not a right, food is not a right, water is not a right, health care is not a right, love is not a right; these are necessities. The pursuit of these commodities is every man's right. Every man has the right to defend these commodities form theft or damage by others. These things are earned through the mind of the individual. Our "Natural rights" are the rights of the individual and are therefor incompatible with a collectivist philosophy. There is no moral or acceptable argument for slavery, so the proponents of that institution change the language of the argument and use phrases like "the common good", "social construction", "minimal well-being among people in a society". These arguments appeal to our emotions and demand that we ignore our own self interest and sacrifice ourselves for the common good; the irony is that the system that does the most "common good" is a system that recognizes our natural rights and offers complete freedom.