> Rights may not, by definition, require taking from someone else.

That's a limited and by no means universally accepted definition of rights, often employed by libertarians, which conveniently aligns with the objectives of the ruling class in the US.

Funny, also, how in your mind "good wages" implies taking from someone (the "job creator"?), while lower wages don't take anything from anyone?

Actually rights are totally fine by "taking from someone else" in the general sense.

Your wage (which you have a right to, as an employee) is already "taking from someone else".

The "right to work" (part of the universal declaration of human rights) includes taking a job that somebody else could take in your place.

And of course the whole idea that "sane work culture", "good wages" and "vacation days" are stolen from other people is inane. Who do you think the Swiss collectively stole them from?

You're making his argument for him. Clearly there is no general "right to work", however nice that may sound, just like there is no "right to marry and have children".

While I'm hesitant to start an argument with you, the issue is not that simple. There are "natural right" strands of thought which would deny existence of a right to work, or similar ones ("2nd generation human rights"). But other schools of thought, possibly most, would affirm their existence.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US voted for, while the USSR, Saudi Arabia and others abstained) does contain the rights to work, leisure, education, among others.

And the European Court of Human Rights, and other legal institutions, make these rights enforceable, too.

So, just saying "there is no such right" falls short.