<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jan 17, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div><br></div><div>A very hungry man walks by an beautiful garden full of fruit trees, with ripe fruits. The hungry man decides to take the risk, break in an feed himself with fruits.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is it it "human right" to have access to food?</div><div><br></div> </div></blockquote><div>IN a previous recent message Daniel Kalchev responded to me claiming he did not understand how property rights and human rights could conflict. Now we gives his own example of just such a possible conflict. I consider Daniel Kalchev to have answered himself on this (and some other) questions, so I'll not respond specifically to that message.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I myself consider both "human rights". My unanswered question was as to how they are differently defined in your school.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Violation of human rights happen all the time. There is no other way for violations of human rights to stop, except all humans being dead.</div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> </div></div></blockquote><div>
So what? Theft, a violation of property rights, occurs all the time and probably will always occur. Should we then give up on property rights? <br>To me, the fact that a right is often violated is pretty close to full proof that the right is valuable and thus subject to risks of being taken or violated.... Unfortunately, other people often point to the frequency of apparent violation of rights and use these alleged facts to argue, or assume, that the right doesn't exist. <br>
</div> <br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>If "property rights" is another form of "human rights", then your above statement is confusing.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you advocate that because some of the "human rights" do not get enough publicity they are not important enough to care for?</div><div><br></div><div>Which is true?</div><div><br></div><div>- we hear more about restrictions to Internet access so we declare it as "human right"</div><div>- we don't hear much about access to Internet, so we declare it is not an "human right"</div><div><br></div><div>At the end, I wonder what is the purpose to define "access to Internet" as an "human right"? Whom will it benefit?</div><div><br></div><div>Daniel</div><br></body></html>