[DanielBMarkham]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think this is the wrong forum.

I'd start the conversation with Hobbes, Locke, and Mill. I wouldn't start the conversation with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," which is where we seem to be starting.

Apologies, not trying to blow you off. I think the key to the discussion is twofold: creation criteria for rights and acceptance criteria for rights. There's a lot in both of those branches of thought. For purposes of my comment, however, I think it's just a matter of whether you generally feel I'm bringing up something serious or just pointlessly posturing. There are a lot of ways to argue what's a "real" right, and even if I screwed up the defense of my position it wouldn't matter. The point is whether you feel the generalization is mostly true or not, ie, is there more foundational material required to make the case. Some folks are perfectly happy with any plea for something desperately-needed that comes out of an emotionally upset person's mouth as being a right. I am not one of them. To each his own.

Links for those interested in further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill