The original proponents of rights treated them as "individual rights." Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights."

But for the sake of this conversation, I just went with "human right," accepting it as valid and not getting into all the mess I just talked about.

By the way, a Constitutional right, ideally, is just an individual right that has been written specifically into the Constitution.

That's a tendentious misrepresentation, bordering on incendiary, not at all suitable for this discussion forum. The human rights movement has roots in the Red Cross, the Geneva convention, and the post-war efforts to create international peace.

International conventions on human rights are not primarily used to "violate individual rights." Yes, they are used to make claims for the positive duties of states and societies to care for the suffering. When water is available, none should be excluded; when water is needed, that is a human rights issue, and measures should be taken.

(To make a counterpoint, the "individual" rights—of which you speak from a libertarian or Randian perspective—are not really all that individual. That's why the rhetoric of individual rights is so often used by those in favor of the rights of corporations. Randians equivocate the notions of the individual and the corporation for ideological reasons.)

Individual rights are not losing their credibility because some illegitimate market rigging is allowed by the State.

"Randians" is insulting (that is why mbrock is using it).

What kind of right do you believe internet use would fall under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Libertie...

Some have argued that prohibiting Internet access to an otherwise free person (not a prisoner) is cruel and unusual punishment. In 1992 that was laughable. In 2015, it's much less laughable.

To say "the right to vote in a democracy is not a human right" is arguably not false, just going on narrow definitions of "vote" and "democracy," but the right to be involved in one's government? Oh yes.

Just because it is denied so many does not mean it is not still a human right.

I can't make out what your problem with my comment is.

That you only don't think all people should have the right to participate in all governments?

Stop strawmanning my words.

Edit: to be clearer - being able to get involved in your own government is a human right. Being able to vote in the French elections is a civil right, reserved to French citizens.

All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.

I think we're saying the same thing, but somehow we got our signals mixed up.

Edit: it's also a bit weird to accuse someone of pedantry when the topic at hand is the subtlety of difference between terms ("what defines a human right as opposed to other rights").