>>315597
Most people think of human rights as being liberating, in that you are given these permissions of things you are allowed to do.
I see them as being restrictive, as by giving rights to humans you are telling them that they are unfree by default unless the government gives its permission for them to have certain liberties.
Now I would prefer that the citizens of my country are by default free to do as they will, and it is the government that is by default unable to do anything at all. That is that unless the document I write will give it permission to do something, it may do nothing at all.
I assume this position because the people of this country have shown how bad they are at keeping themselves free, they will vote in laws and rules that will suffocate their liberty generation by generation. And so this is a matter for one man taking a stand right now, who wants little to impact his own life except the satisfaction of seeing his vision be made manifest in reality, with no investment in the outcome, just to see his curiosity satiated.
And then I would start giving rights to the government, and those rights will be restricted and locked to the following: that the government shall have the right to do what is reasonably necessary to protect the sovereignty of the individual citizen over their person and property, that is to say over their bodies and their belongings, by way of requiring that any interaction one citizen makes with what is owned by another is done with the informed voluntary and nonwithdrawn consent of owner. That is the principle of nonaggression.
I have an issue with those humans who assert that their needs are rights, or that their wants are rights, or that they have a right to resourced and opportunities.