You speak of rights, and even dare to describe whatever they are, but simply cannot define a right without recourse to cognates and synonyms, because you have no clear idea of what a "right" is, as you are about to demonstrate.

You boldly assert that, but have not the faintest idea what a "right" is. That you have not the faintest idea what a right is you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to set out with any degree of clarity or precision exactly how you understand a right or what you suppose a right to be

@@vhawk1951kl I think the original commenter gave a pretty clear, unambiguous criteria for what a "right" is, a criteria that already should satisfy your challenge that he would not be able to define "what a right is". He said a right is inherent and does not require a society or positive action from others - that's a simple and clear criteria. To spell it out further, rights would be those actions and capacities we have that are functions of our natural biology, with the simple caveat that they are those actions and capacities which do not interfere with the rights of others (I admit the original commenter did not mention the caveat, though it's borderline unnecessary to do so due to its obviousness). Anything that you are naturally, inherently capable of doing, provided it doesn't interfere with other people's such capacities, is a right. Things like speaking freely, interacting and assembling with others, traveling and moving freely, holding personal opinions and beliefs, thinking, sleeping, breathing, pursuing ends (whatever they might be like education, skills, love, friendship, happiness - their _pursuit_ is a right) -- all these things are rights. The definition is quite clear, however that does not mean that answering the question "is X a right?" will always and forever in all circumstances be easy and clear to answer, but basically, that is the definition, it's objective, and it is not impossible to discern some concepts of rights using it. More could be said about this of course and I believe that there is a spectrum between "rights" and "privileges" and a thorough discussion would involve answering the question what the word "right" means in certain contexts. For example, I believe the prior mentioned criteria constitute what I call _natural_ rights, but in the contexts of _politics_ the term "right" has come to mean something else entirely, and is basically just a word used to describe someone's _opinion_ about "how the world should be" or something like that.

Regardless of that humbug, you have not the faintest idea what a right is, do you? You are perfectly capable of coming to your own definition or understanding of what a right is, but you don't even bother to try, do you?; You simply assume that somebody else knows better than you do - you go running to somebody else to tell you; you simply assume that somebody else knows better than you. If they can answer the question or come up with some sort of formulation which satisfies you, why don't you? - Why look to others all the time?

@@vhawk1951kl thank you

@@vhawk1951kl have a great day.

Reciprocity is not necessary at all for "any" contract. Anybody can conceive of a contract that has no element of reciprocity to it - I can sign a contract, for instance, that pledges to donate money to people at regular intervals, with no reciprocity, and once I sign it, I am bound by it and it is a wholly valid contract. Moreover, when you say "getting as well as you're required to give" who is supposed to judge that besides the two people signing the contract? If someone signs a contract because they think they'll make some money by signing it, they're _obviously_ already "getting" as well as "giving" - they're giving their time, and they're getting money. If someone gets a thousand dollars in their pocket but produces two three thousand dollars profit for someone else while doing so, their benefit is not equal, but they both benefited in the end, so what is the problem supposed to be?

What a pity you have not the faintest idea what a "right" is. You can't even begin to define "a right" or rights, can you? This you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to do so

@@vhawk1951kl And instead of providing any counter argument, you chose to make this strange salty comment for some reason. What a pity.

That's incorrect. We all deserve a fair piece of the accumulated wealth of humanity, which is plenty enough to pay nurses and doctors to take care of us when we need it.

@@havenbastion Then by all means tell me what proportion of what I have that you deserve. I want the number. No hiding behind vapid vagueries.

@@billmelater6470 How much more do you have than you've earned? Because i have less than i've earned and it went somewhere. And don't pretend that the amount given to you by "the market" was in any sense a fair representation of your worth.

"Wrong" meaning that you don't like it, eh? There is no-such-thing as race, but plenty of that religion/morality bunk and enough to spare to slaughter every last mother's son.