Comment: So because I don't agree with it that means I haven't read it?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You obviously haven't read AJ (see in situ)

So because I don't agree with it that means I haven't read it?

How absurd!

On the other hand, it was you who made the claim that "needs are rights." And that until we have "justice" on this count, we won't be truly free. Sounds like demagoguery to me.

I've countered you all the way on this. Your only resort was to Paine, who as I pointed out, was wrong as well.

You haven't given on iota of explanation as to why your position is correct. I've given you cold hard reasons that it is wrong. You instead resorted to relying on the gravitas of someone else to make your point. Your error, is that in this case, this someone else was also in error.

It doesn't look like we are going to agree at all on this issue.

I see no point in continuing the conversation.

I stand by my position that "rights" are "authorities to take action." They should not be confounded with claims to things. To do so is to imply that one is owed things even if they cannot obtain them by their own actions, thus you are either a slave who is provided for, or a master who forces others to provide for you. In either case, if you cannot provide for yourself, you are not free.