> How does anyone have any claim to 'their share' of resources without any input?

Counterpoint: not a single person born was asked to be put here. None. Every one of us was put here because 2 people chose to have sex (with or without consent) and left us as a result.

To that original sin of non-consent, the least those already here owe us is the minimum to live, without any "input".

> Just by being in existence, they deserve to consume natural resources / technology? I don't see how that makes sense.

The sun provides nearly limitless energy. Natural resources can be used to make things. The 'free' resources are already there. To say that every human gets a 'share' of resources upon birth isn't exactly a foreign thought, either. The richie's with trust funds get this... But somehow daddy dearest having others work hard for him means he benefits.

> Just by being in existence, they deserve to consume natural resources / technology?

Yes. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also must acknowledge the tragedy of the commons, and that just by existing both utility is being extracted from them (in the modern era) and natural resources that there is no question that they have a right to (air, water, etc) are being utilized and modified by others. E.g. a coal processing plant provides a lot of utility (electricity) but the economic model does not account for the costs that this has on both a global (carbon) and local (pollution) consequences on shared goods (that are innate rights).

Wow, so we reduce human beings and life to what, something without value of its own? You do know where that ideology ultimately leads, don't you? Hint: it leads to very bad, very dark places...

Honestly, I have no idea how people are so willing to sacrife human rights, right literally millions of people had to die in order for us to have them, for the sake of profit and capitalism, benefits only an extremely limited number of people actually have.

Is it a human right to be fed & sheltered by others? Without giving anything in return?

What about human rights of those at the other side of a stick? Is it a human right to demand something from another human being? Is it a human right to have to provide to someone?

Yes.

Articles 22 and 25 in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

Either you are trolling, trying to pass as a ultra-tough meritocrate or you just don't care about other people. Maybe all of the above.

Edit: All edge and no point sums up your comment, and the GP, pretty well, I guess.

Not who you responded to but, who died and made the UN king? Are they the final say in the determination of human rights? There are countries that are not members of the UN, do these human rights apply to people in those countries? If so, by what authority? If another group of countries forms a group and makes a declaration of human rights that is the antithesis of this one, does it have the same merit?

I love people just asking "questions", the laziest version of dark rethoric there is. What's next, define human, define right?

But ok, I'll bite. Nobody made the UN king, the UN so contains a vast majority of nations. As stated, those rights are universal, and apply to everyone, including you. Since th UN signed of, basically every nation did as well. That a lot are not respecting them is a different story, but doesn't neuter those rights.

Also, those rights, one way or the other and to various degrees, are already enshrined in western democratic constititions (I don't whether or those sets of law are actually called that).

And no, human rights are not defined by a majority vote. Otherwise we would have the human right to be held as slave, to be lynched because of skin color, sexual orientation or religion, imprisoned because of your political opinion without trial and a whole lot of other nasty things.

Currently, the UN isbthe hoghest, most universal body tondefine such things we have. If sometjing better comes along, fine. For the UN to be born, we needed WW2 and millions of murdered civilians. That answers your question of who died, childreny, the elderly across fronts and beligerent nations all over the world. And the same kind of people continue to die because they don not have those rights everyone in the free democracies takes for granted.

And let's not be dicks by denying our fellow human beings the most basic freedoms and human dignity. Argueing for that isn't edgy, it is pathetic and only shows incredible levels of priviledge.

The point of my line of questioning was not to be edgy, it was to illustrate the utterly ephemeral nature of "human rights". These rights are not carved in stone anywhere, and even in places where they are "enshrined in western democratic constitutions" they are not applied universally and are eroded still. There is nothing stopping a powerful and large enough group from redefining these rights.

Even your own examples illustrate the fragility of these rights.

> And no, human rights are not defined by a majority vote. Otherwise we would have the human right to be held as slave, to be lynched because of skin color, sexual orientation or religion, imprisoned because of your political opinion without trial and a whole lot of other nasty things.

Surely human rights _are_ defined by majority vote, given that not all humans had the right to be free in relatively recent history in the US. What force would these human rights have if they were defined by the Sri Lankan government and held by no other?

So, are you in favor of the UN version of human rights or not? Or human rights, as they are commonly understood (you know this whole freedom, safety, security, privacy and not be surpressed and abused stuff), in general?

Hell, I feel like I'm trapped in an interview with Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro...

UN can go fuck themselves. Corrupted fuckers, sometimes literally (e.g. blue helmets). Silly forum, run mostly by dictators nowadays.

Once somebody's „human rights“ has to be provided by someone else and is someone else's work... It's no longer a „human right“. It's forced labour from the providing side. This modern version of so-called „human rights“ is a disgrace to once great idea.