Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by Ardy
The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"?

I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question.

I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Humm, you seem to define rights as a set of actions. That is not at all my understanding. I was thinking of rights more as the conceptual entitlement to action (or inaction). In trying to figure this out, I came accross the following that seems to me to be a good beginning

Quote
Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.

Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.
link

Of course others are free to refine or refute the above as they feel is warranted. But for me, the above does a fairly good job of capturing the concept that most people have when they use the word "rights"

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel