Human rights and social, politics and economic rights are not weighed equally. You have inalienable rights but too also have some that can be granted by society or taken away at will. The right to vote is not an inalienable right.
Society can and does grant rights that are not inherently present from the moment you are born.
Those aren't rights because they're obtain from someone else, always. Voting isn't necessary when you can't be compelled to do anything.
Ok HH, I’ll give you the allowance to argue a definition of a word. After all, you are allowed to say whatever you like. And yes, you don’t have a right to be heard because I can simply close this app, but for now I’ll allow it.
It's not a nominalisy discussion. What you present as "rights" are privileges. When I say they're obtained from someone else I didn't mean that someone "gives" them but that they are LITERALLY gotten at the expense of other people's rights, invariably. As a consequences, they can never be "rights", but aggressions against others, AKA privileges (or worse, crimes).
Your argument is based on an incorrect definition of a word. And we are essentially arguing definitions. I rest my case.
Objection sustained.
If you mean that your definition of "rights" is wrong then... you are... right.
Dictionary is your friend.
So, zero arguments beyond snarks to my actual point: what you call "social and political" rights are always obtained at the expense of the actual rights ("human rights" in your lingo) of others.
These being: the absolute, uninfringeable right to oneself, and derived from it, the absolute right to one's property and the absolute right to not being compelled to do anything against one's will.
What you described is a category of rights. But you also have legal rights for example. They are not a given and they don’t come at anyone’s expense. The right to an attorney, right to remain silent, right to speedy trial. They are not called privilege to an attorney, privilege to a speedy trial. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to give you the legal right to fair representation in court. Maybe some public defender expense.
In a flourishing society you’d have more rights.
If you don’t like the definition put forth by society by all means call it whatever you like but we cannot possibly discuss the same thing if you give it a different meaning.
I don’t even know why I have to say any of this, seems like common sense knowledge. Going forward I’ll assume you’re just trying to make a point at all costs, logical or illogical or just plain trolling.
You have to say it because I'm hoping that you'll come to the conclusion yourself by reasoning out loud.
But I see you're not willing: all the things you mention are either simple abstractions of the true rights I explained (the right not to be compelled already covers the US 5A in its entirety, for instance) and thus are unnecessary, or DO come at the expense of other people's rights and thus are privileges: you can't have "public" anything without taxing people, which is an infringement on their rights, by definition.
I would say you are the one so stuck in your conviction of holding an "evident truth" that you forget to reason your arguments. I won't go as far as calling you a troll though, just wrong and a bit intellectually lazy.
