NationStates Jolt Archive

I ran across this quote on an earlier thread about whether men should have a choice not to support a child they don't want. And since I was taking this in an ENTIRELY different direction, I figured I'd start a new thread. And this is no knock on Upper, I actually think the point made at the end of the quote is pretty valid. But it did get me pondering whether people believe that they can come up with a positive definition of rights.



Providing sperm is the man's choice. Abortion is the woman's. Chalk it up to how biology works, but there it is. Simply that a woman COULD get an abortion does not, in any way, excuse a man from responsibility for his earlier participation.

I don't think that "biology" is concerned with rights or choices. It just explains what happens with certain chemical reactions that affect living organisms. Rights must be entirely separate from science. Whether you believe in natural law or in the idea that rights are granted by the state, I don't see where biology comes into play. A scientific statement is positive. In my estimation, a statement about the extent of rights is normative.

The whole point is that rights are a value statement, a matter of opinion that can never be defined absolutely. On the other hand, I'm a pretty firm libertarian so I think that there HAS to be some definition of rights that is absolute. So what is it?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved, clearly and conclusively, that since A is A, one's rights are an inherent part of one's existence, and their existence is a matter of objective fact.

Rights don't exist. We can come to broad arrangements with eachother through governments but we don't have any "rights" when we are born. There's what we physically can do and what we physically can't do and that's pretty much it.

It's one of the more fundamental problems with Libertarianism and one that the "negative/positive" trick doesn't really cover - you either have to go to anarchy (in which people may just end up setting up their own socialised governments) or admit that there's no question of rights being abused through government intervention.

There's no difference in "rights" between hitting somebody and buying up all the land around their house so that they're stuck. Stating that they're different because of a distinction born out of convenience rather than conviction doesn't change it.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved, clearly and conclusively, that since A is A, one's rights are an inherent part of one's existence, and their existence is a matter of objective fact.
By all means read up on Ms Rand, but she proved next to nothing.

I would say that rights are granted by society. I maintain, like Amnesty, that some rights should be universal, but what this boils down to is a desire for society to accept this position.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved, clearly and conclusively, that since A is A, one's rights are an inherent part of one's existence, and their existence is a matter of objective fact.
This is the one major thing I think Rand got wrong. She's presupposing the existence of rights; its a circular argument.

I really like a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, but her philosophical justification was terrible.

By all means read up on Ms Rand, but she proved next to nothing.

I would say that rights are granted by society. I maintain, like Amnesty, that some rights should be universal, but what this boils down to is a desire for society to accept this position.


But then what you're talking about is not a right. A right cannot be granted.....if it's granted, it's a privilege.

My problem with the concept of rights is that it is based solely upon species. What makes anyone think that our species has some special thing that belongs to mankind alone?

Nothing in political science can be prooved positively.

However, the best justification for rights comes from Locke, who points out that we are born completely free, and that therefore our rights are inate, and that it is only our agreement which allows them to be taken away.

Nothing in political science can be prooved positively.
Rights are a legal construct. As such, they exist when they exist.

How's that?

I really like a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, but her philosophical justification was terrible.

usually hilariously so

My problem with the concept of rights is that it is based solely upon species. What makes anyone think that our species has some special thing that belongs to mankind alone?
This is a problem a lot of people don't seem to get. To satisfy the condition of fairness, we need to define a person in terms of relevant characteristics, not just membership in a species. And in doing so, we have to allow for the possibility that some non-humans might qualify, and some humans might not.

The question is of accountabily,not right. If you kill someone, are you not to blame for taking a life, why would not the reverse be true. Yes, a woman has a choice before and after the deed, while the man has only the option of a properly worn condom(hate them) or not haveing sex. If you would do it with a healthy woman who might become pregnent(science), than the effects later are both of yours(accountabilty). If she refuses an abortion,that is the only right I can see, and the father should be held reposnable.

usually hilariously so
You can't just discard Hume like that, but Rand did. Openly denying that "no is implies an ought" is a great way to get laughed out of the room.

I ran across this quote on an earlier thread about whether men should have a choice not to support a child they don't want. And since I was taking this in an ENTIRELY different direction, I figured I'd start a new thread. And this is no knock on Upper, I actually think the point made at the end of the quote is pretty valid. But it did get me pondering whether people believe that they can come up with a positive definition of rights.

I don't think that "biology" is concerned with rights or choices. It just explains what happens with certain chemical reactions that affect living organisms. Rights must be entirely separate from science. Whether you believe in natural law or in the idea that rights are granted by the state, I don't see where biology comes into play. A scientific statement is positive. In my estimation, a statement about the extent of rights is normative.

The whole point is that rights are a value statement, a matter of opinion that can never be defined absolutely. On the other hand, I'm a pretty firm libertarian so I think that there HAS to be some definition of rights that is absolute. So what is it?

One can attempt to define rights both positively and normatively, and it is rather important to do so, as it is those who make the equivocation between positive legal rights and normative moral rights who are usually the most abhorrent aggressors.

One has the right to do anything they are physically capable of doing, including the right to forgo certain rights in the hope that their companions will do the same.
Does that work?

One has the right to do anything they are physically capable of doing, including the right to forgo certain rights in the hope that their companions will do the same.
Does that work?
I think you made the same mistake Rand did, just less explicitly.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved, clearly and conclusively, that since A is A, one's rights are an inherent part of one's existence, and their existence is a matter of objective fact.

Please provide the argument with which she proved that.

If it's just a sum total of her writings then she didn't prove it so much as suggest it in an attractive fashion.

Rights are a legal construct. As such, they exist when they exist.

How's that?

Lousy. Societies with no body of law still recognize rights. Often many more of them than modern states.

By all means read up on Ms Rand, but she proved next to nothing.

I would say that rights are granted by society. I maintain, like Amnesty, that some rights should be universal, but what this boils down to is a desire for society to accept this position.

I would argue the opposite. A person by himself can do as he pleases. The only limits on his rights are his abilities and resources. Limits are only placed on his behavior when he is in the company of another person. And even then only if the opinion of person B matters to person A.

So while it may not be a complete definition, part of the definition of what constitutes a right would be behaviors that society can not justly take away rather than those behaviors that one's society will provide an opportunity to engage in that would otherwise be impossible.

e.g. Eating is a right. Looking for something to eat is a right. Having something to eat is not a right, because others are not obliged to provide that food if you can't get it yourself. Having food is only a privilege offered by membership in a group (even if that group is Hermits Living Off the Land).

Lousy. Societies with no body of law still recognize rights.
That doesn't make them correct. You're assuming that societies can't make mistakes in identifying rights.

My definition was both sound and defensible.

You can't just discard Hume like that, but Rand did. Openly denying that "no is implies an ought" is a great way to get laughed out of the room.

its even worse when you do so in an arrogantly mocking way, but at the same time in a way that shows you clearly didn't understand the problem at all.

That doesn't make them correct. You're assuming that societies can't make mistakes in identifying rights.

My definition was both sound and defensible.

You defined them as based in law. The fact that a society without a body of law can still misidentify a right doesn't refute my point, nor does it support yours. Societies with laws can also misidentify rights. Take a look at our former Attorney General who claimed that there was no right of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution.

The point was that since rights can be recognized in the absence of laws, they can not be defined by laws. Only recognized.

It's like saying that the definition of a circle is a closed curve drawn around a point that is equidistant from all points on the curve. It's close, but a circle doesn't have to be drawn, so the definition is wrong. A circle is a concept and doesn't need to be visually represented at all to exist as a concept. So the definition of a circle is simply "all points equidistant from a specified point on a plane." No reference to drawing. Just like the definition of rights must have no reference to law lest it be inaccurately restrictive.

I ran across this quote on an earlier thread about whether men should have a choice not to support a child they don't want. And since I was taking this in an ENTIRELY different direction, I figured I'd start a new thread. And this is no knock on Upper, I actually think the point made at the end of the quote is pretty valid. But it did get me pondering whether people believe that they can come up with a positive definition of rights.



I don't think that "biology" is concerned with rights or choices. It just explains what happens with certain chemical reactions that affect living organisms. Rights must be entirely separate from science. Whether you believe in natural law or in the idea that rights are granted by the state, I don't see where biology comes into play. A scientific statement is positive. In my estimation, a statement about the extent of rights is normative.

The whole point is that rights are a value statement, a matter of opinion that can never be defined absolutely. On the other hand, I'm a pretty firm libertarian so I think that there HAS to be some definition of rights that is absolute. So what is it?

I was not arguing that biology granted rights, merely that biology determined what the specific choices a man and a woman have in reproduction. The last sentence was my belief that a man's responsibility is not negated by the existance of the woman's choice.

Rights (and the accompanying responsibilities) are determined legally by society. What is considered a right in some places is not in others. I am not sure there actually ARE any inalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be (and often are) countermanded at any time by our various governments. There are certain rights that I BELIEVE to be important, and I will get out there and fight (not with guns... but with words, certainly) for. And I think that is how we (as people) get rights... by agreeing as a society that they are important and making them legal.

On the other hand, I think "you have the right to..." is a phrase that is vastly overused. "You have the right to own a good car and live in an expensive house!" "You have a right to a decent cup of coffee in the morning!" and so on.

So I would guess my answer to your thread title question is "No I can't."

Sorry Upper, I tried to make it clear in my post that I wasn't picking on your post. It was just that seeing 'rights' and 'biology' in two adjacent sentences got me thinking about how science and ethics/philosophy/morality/humanity/whatever-the-hell are incompatible.

Sorry Upper, I tried to make it clear in my post that I wasn't picking on your post. It was just that seeing 'rights' and 'biology' in two adjacent sentences got me thinking about how science and ethics/philosophy/morality/humanity/whatever-the-hell are incompatible.

No, no! I didn't think you were picking! I was just explaining my position, and attempting to answer your question. It's all good! :)

* Edit * And I think I was agreeing about biology not granting rights...

People like to remember their rights yet forget their duties.

Since the concept of rights is a construct and one only has rights as long as the powers that be acknowledge those rights, then, no, rights cannot be defined either normatively or positively.

But then what you're talking about is not a right. A right cannot be granted.....if it's granted, it's a privilege.

Yes, but when we grant it to everyone, it's a right. 'Human rights' (for example) are priveleges that we agree (or sign an agreement saying, or whatever, depending on the context) should apply to all human beings.

My problem with the concept of rights is that it is based solely upon species. What makes anyone think that our species has some special thing that belongs to mankind alone?

Because we made the rules. Humans are social creatures and can comprehend that they're like other humans. We have difficulty communicating with other species as easily (although the line is sometimes blurred with, for example, beloved pets). We made the rules on how we would treat other creatures, and we put ourselves at the top.

mmh ... (my first post, so, sorry if i say something already pointed out somewhere else)
I don't believe that rights have much to do with something you're able or not to do (let's say, someone who carries an handycap can't materially climb steps, but has the right to enter in any public place, that's what "architectonical barrier" means; not mentioning that some stupid "normal" human being abuse of some people with mental conditions, the abused have the same right to prevent a life of suffering, but maybe they can't point it out or even see the problem). I think that a society is something like the game in Rousseau's work: "I do what I'm supposed to do because I suppose you'll do what you're supposed".
So, rights are set by mankind FOR mankind, animals have their own laws and interspecies laws have to be set in order to guarantee the best for both species.
Men have the right to ask for abortion, not to force it, so the right is all to the woman in the end. In a perfect society, people would talk about it and come up with the best solution for both (parents and child). But we live in this world and the best we can do is tend to Utopia. (even if Utopia would be dangerous for THIS mankind, anyway, that's another story)
sorry if i write too much :D

I was not arguing that biology granted rights, merely that biology determined what the specific choices a man and a woman have in reproduction. The last sentence was my belief that a man's responsibility is not negated by the existance of the woman's choice.

Rights (and the accompanying responsibilities) are determined legally by society. What is considered a right in some places is not in others. I am not sure there actually ARE any inalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be (and often are) countermanded at any time by our various governments. There are certain rights that I BELIEVE to be important, and I will get out there and fight (not with guns... but with words, certainly) for. And I think that is how we (as people) get rights... by agreeing as a society that they are important and making them legal.

On the other hand, I think "you have the right to..." is a phrase that is vastly overused. "You have the right to own a good car and live in an expensive house!" "You have a right to a decent cup of coffee in the morning!" and so on.

So I would guess my answer to your thread title question is "No I can't."

But what's considered a terrorist in one place is considered a freedom fighter in another. That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a terrorist. It means that people will try to confuse the issue to further their own ends. The only reason that it's so easy to confuse the issue of who's a terrorist is because most people think of terrorist as "people I don't like." That's why in addition to people who blow up civilians to undermine a government we also have the word "terrorist" being applied to actual military organizations, potheads, teachers' unions, and tax dodgers.

There is now no way we could define terrorist without either including our own military or excluding a great many organizations and actions that our government currently calls terrorist. And a lot of people would vehemently disagree based on nothing more than their own preconceived ideas of what a terrorist is.

By the same token any definition we come up with for rights is going to have people upset that they suddenly don't have the "right" to smoke pot or that other people suddenly have the "right" to get abortions.

But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a right anymore than theres no such thing as a terrorist.

I would argue the opposite. A person by himself can do as he pleases. The only limits on his rights are his abilities and resources.

Ah, but if a person is by himself, then he alone forms the society. As such, he has the power to grant himself whatever rights he pleases. Dashanzi's suggestion still stands.

Limits are only placed on his behavior when he is in the company of another person. And even then only if the opinion of person B matters to person A.

In this case, the two people together form the society. If person A does something of which person B doesn't approve, then B has two choices. He can do nothing about it (and thus grant A the right to do it), or he can stop A from doing it, which would be equal to taking legal action in a larger society.

So, you are entirely correct here, but this is not in any way contradicting the idea that rights are granted by society.

Ah, but if a person is by himself, then he alone forms the society. As such, he has the power to grant himself whatever rights he pleases. Dashanzi's suggestion still stands.



In this case, the two people together form the society. If person A does something of which person B doesn't approve, then B has two choices. He can do nothing about it (and thus grant A the right to do it), or he can stop A from doing it, which would be equal to taking legal action in a larger society.

So, you are entirely correct here, but this is not in any way contradicting the idea that rights are granted by society.

One person is not a society. In fact, society is defines specifically as not living in isolation. The word society comes from a word for partner.

One person = no society+unlimited rights.
>one person = society-rights.

In general, the more people you get, the less rights you get, though there are exceptions. There are very few rights taken away from hunter-gatherers by their own societies. If one disagrees strongly enough with the leader, one is free to leave. That's why H-G bands tend not to number more than 15 to 30 people. As soon as a guy has enough friends to come with him, he picks a fight with the leader and leads a few friends away to form a new band.

Tribal societies tie themselves to the land but not to any particular tribal leader. If the de facto leader becomes to much of a pain, people will tell him to go get stuffed.

In States, overthrowing the leader is unthinkable. While America may vote out a president, overthrowing him is considered one of the worst crimes. You can't even declare your own patch of land to be a sovereign entity the way that tribes can. Several groups have been attacked, killed and thrown in jail (not all three in every case) for trying to do that. And not just the confederacy.

In states we can't even settle our own disputes. You're not allowed to duel a guy who hits on your girlfriend. Even if you and he agree to a duel, the state says it's a case of mutually attempted murder.

More society, less rights.

But what's considered a terrorist in one place is considered a freedom fighter in another. That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a terrorist. It means that people will try to confuse the issue to further their own ends. The only reason that it's so easy to confuse the issue of who's a terrorist is because most people think of terrorist as "people I don't like." That's why in addition to people who blow up civilians to undermine a government we also have the word "terrorist" being applied to actual military organizations, potheads, teachers' unions, and tax dodgers.

There is now no way we could define terrorist without either including our own military or excluding a great many organizations and actions that our government currently calls terrorist. And a lot of people would vehemently disagree based on nothing more than their own preconceived ideas of what a terrorist is.

By the same token any definition we come up with for rights is going to have people upset that they suddenly don't have the "right" to smoke pot or that other people suddenly have the "right" to get abortions.

But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a right anymore than theres no such thing as a terrorist.

But it is all in defining them. The terrorist who is actually a freedom fighter may still BE a terrorist, but that doesn't make her any less of a freedom fighter either.

And the problem with rights is that they can be CALLED rights, you and I can agree that they SHOULD be rights, but unless society as a whole makes them legal, then they are rights in name only. So again, while I do think that there are some things which SHOULD be rights for all humans, it doesn't hold that they universally will be.

For instance, I think people should have the right to get together and talk about (and shout if they feel the need) things that are bothering them. Currently, Myanmar has said that if you do it in groups of more than five, you are going to be arrested. I also think that everyone deserves the right to a fair trial, but Bush has decreed that certain people don't have that right, that they can be detained in places like Guantanamo Bay for however long the government wants to do so.

In both cases, these are things which I think are rights, you may or may not agree, but ultimately society (in the form of the government) makes the final decision. And if I want to change that decision, I have to change society's mind (or the makeup of that government).

Rights are a two step process:

1) The identification of a freedom.
2) The agreement of protection from incursions against that freedom (almost always via a social contract) for an individual or group by other individuals or groups.

One person is not a society. In fact, society is defines specifically as not living in isolation. The word society comes from a word for partner.

One person = no society+unlimited rights.
>one person = society-rights.

It's just a matter of semantics. All the people in an area, which is small enough to force the people to interact with each other, decide together which rights the inhabitants of the area can have (in a democracy), and if only one person lives there, nobody is there to question his suggested rights. It is the same, regardless of how far the definition of 'society' extends.

In general, the more people you get, the less rights you get, though there are exceptions. There are very few rights taken away from hunter-gatherers by their own societies. If one disagrees strongly enough with the leader, one is free to leave. That's why H-G bands tend not to number more than 15 to 30 people. As soon as a guy has enough friends to come with him, he picks a fight with the leader and leads a few friends away to form a new band.

Tribal societies tie themselves to the land but not to any particular tribal leader. If the de facto leader becomes to much of a pain, people will tell him to go get stuffed.

Now you are confusing society with government, although in most modern cases they are the same in the legal sense. I've never lived in a H-G band, so I don't know their systems well, but I'd assume it's possible for you to do some nasty stuff that upsets the rest of the band so that they'll decide to excommunicate or even lynch you, regardless of the chieftain's opinion. In that case, your rights are not defined by what the chieftain allows you to do, but by what the other people in the group consider OK. Just because you're free to leave, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're free to stay.

A modern example: I think you have the legal right to be openly communist in the small towns of Texas, but I wouldn't recommend trying.

But like I said, I don't know how H-G people actually handle these things. Just assuming.

In States, overthrowing the leader is unthinkable. While America may vote out a president, overthrowing him is considered one of the worst crimes. You can't even declare your own patch of land to be a sovereign entity the way that tribes can. Several groups have been attacked, killed and thrown in jail (not all three in every case) for trying to do that. And not just the confederacy.

It's not a crime if you succeed, you know. I'd suppose that even in small primitive groups, the leaders don't take kindly to failed coup attempts. The people in power like to stay that way, and any attempt to compromise that will invoke a violent reaction in any society. The only difference is that in a smaller society, the attempt is less likely to fail.

In states we can't even settle our own disputes. You're not allowed to duel a guy who hits on your girlfriend. Even if you and he agree to a duel, the state says it's a case of mutually attempted murder.

You can settle your disputes, just not with violence. Some guy hitting on your girlfriend is a really stupid reason to kill and/or die anyway, even if you both agree to it. Allowing dueling would have bad side effects, like people challenging others for trivial stuff, and reluctant people agreeing to duel in the fear of being labeled as cowards. I don't think the right to duel is worth the trouble.

If you just want to beat the shit out of him (of course after trying to reason with him), with or without his consent, I wouldn't mind passing that law. Not because of rights, but because some people just won't understand any other form of communication.

More society, less rights.

Bigger society means more people disagreeing with you, and therefore more people telling what you can't do. Yes. Still, it's up to the society to decide what is allowed, and because of that, rights are granted by society. Or the collective of people around you, if you prefer. I don't buy any of that stuff about people having some natural rights just for being humans.

I ran across this quote on an earlier thread about whether men should have a choice not to support a child they don't want. And since I was taking this in an ENTIRELY different direction, I figured I'd start a new thread. And this is no knock on Upper, I actually think the point made at the end of the quote is pretty valid. But it did get me pondering whether people believe that they can come up with a positive definition of rights.



I don't think that "biology" is concerned with rights or choices. It just explains what happens with certain chemical reactions that affect living organisms. Rights must be entirely separate from science. Whether you believe in natural law or in the idea that rights are granted by the state, I don't see where biology comes into play. A scientific statement is positive. In my estimation, a statement about the extent of rights is normative.

The whole point is that rights are a value statement, a matter of opinion that can never be defined absolutely. On the other hand, I'm a pretty firm libertarian so I think that there HAS to be some definition of rights that is absolute. So what is it?



There is really only one right, and all other rights are as a subset to this one.

Now it has been said the the idea of rights is a human concept, and while this is true, the issue of rights, and the one right that I am thinking off is applicable to all life.

The right to life. Is both a right and an reason. All life strives to live, survive, and reproduce, and it seems that it is right that it does so.

So this right has as it's basis the very biology that you want to ignore. In the thread you mention, the rights of the child towers far above the right of the dad who wants to forget about supporting the fruit of his loins.

Biologically speaking the dad needs no more aid as he is an adult, but the child, evolutionary speaking, can be expected to enjoy the safety net provided by both parents.

This is the way it works in nature, because we have the ability to reason, should we be exempted from this wholly biological law?

I would say that rights are granted by society.

Then you are wrong.

My problem with the concept of rights is that it is based solely upon species.

No, it's not.

It's based on the existence of certain characteristics in the agent.

It just so happens that humans are the only species known to possess those characteristics.

Rights (and the accompanying responsibilities) are determined legally by society. What is considered a right in some places is not in others. I am not sure there actually ARE any inalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be (and often are) countermanded at any time by our various governments.
And those governments are acting illegitimately.

Those governments are not taking away your rights; they are simply violating them. You still have them. You might get punished for exercising them, but since they are still your rights then any body that attempts to punish you is acting illegitimately.

The difference is important.

Since the concept of rights is a construct
Incorrect.

and one only has rights as long as the powers that be acknowledge those rights,
Incorrect.

then, no, rights cannot be defined either normatively or positively.

Your conclusion follows from your premises, but your premises are incorrect.

*Pretends to be Linus and Lucy*

You are wrong but I am not going to give an argument as to why as I am clearly so superior to you.

*Pretends to be Linus and Lucy*

You are wrong but I am not going to give an argument as to why as I am clearly so superior to you.

There is no need to restate what has alread been said in this thread, or in works referenced in this thread.

There is no need to restate what has alread been said in this thread, or in works referenced in this thread.

Incorrect

No, it's not.

It's based on the existence of certain characteristics in the agent.

It just so happens that humans are the only species known to possess those characteristics.What about those particular characteristics indicates the existence of rights?

What about those particular characteristics indicates the existence of rights?

I would like to know what characteristics are unique to humans.

And those governments are acting illegitimately.

Those governments are not taking away your rights; they are simply violating them. You still have them. You might get punished for exercising them, but since they are still your rights then any body that attempts to punish you is acting illegitimately.

The difference is important.

So I have the right to come to your house and slap you across the face (being too ladylike to punch you) and then run away? And if the government punishes me for this, THEY are acting illegitimately?

Boy I do not want to live in YOUR world.

Your conclusion follows from your premises, but your premises are incorrect.

Then let's hear your positive (or normative, for that matter) definition of rights.

So I have the right to come to your house and slap you across the face (being too ladylike to punch you) and then run away? And if the government punishes me for this, THEY are acting illegitimately?

That does not follow from anything I have said, since I have never argued that "you have the right to do anything you want, no matter what."

I simply argued that you DO have certain rights as an intrinsic part of your existence as a human being, and when government violates them it does not change the fact that you still have those rights; it just means that government is acting illegitimately.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved, clearly and conclusively, that since A is A, one's rights are an inherent part of one's existence, and their existence is a matter of objective fact.

No offense (really), but Ayn Rand was a hack and rights are, as Max Stirner might say, "spooks." They don't exist. And if a right does exist, point to one that hasn't been violated without consequence. At the end of the day, a "right" is simply your ABILITY to do x; no more, no less.