Originally Posted by issodhos
Yes, inaction is a choice. It has repercussions. They may be social, moral, or ethical, but it is not an infringement of his natural right to life because a natural right cannot obligate another to provide that right, and inaction is neutral in that regard.

how so?

What are the "rules" governing rights? Are we allowed change these rules? where do they come from? how are they defined? who made the rules on what a right is and its shape, form, and attributes?

do rights not have accompanying duties inherent in them?

If a man has access to all the available water and chooses not share (sharing can take many forms, including selling it:-)) doesnt that take away anothers right to exist?

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)