found online by Raymond
From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
I think there is an important distinction between human rights and individual rights. “Human rights” is a collectivist term, and can be used to describe “rights” of groups at the expense of individuals. But there are no group rights independent of the rights of individuals. Individuals may grant a group the power to represent one of each member’s individual’s rights, on a limited, contractual, mutually agreed basis. But the idea that groups have rights independent of individual rights negates individual rights, and thus the whole purpose and justification of the U.S. Constitution.
“I think that, inadvertently or intentionally, Atkins makes a crucial error when he uses the term “human rights” instead of individual rights. When referring to the Declaration of Independence, he does mention “rights”, but never individual rights. In fact, the term individual rights appears nowhere in the article, which is incredible in a discussion devoted the the U.S. Constitution.” – Grandpa that has a strange, almost creepy devotion to the Declaration LaFerrara
Interestingly enough, Individual Rights appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence either. Huh. Which is incredible, since the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution and has nothing to do with the point Mr. LaFerrara’s trying to fabricate out of the ether of history.
To borrow from Mitt, “Corporations are individuals, my friend.”
He really likes to find things to complain about. “Human rights” is used mostly to distinguish either (1) rights of humans from rights of other creatures or (2) rights of humans in general from rights of citizens of a particular country. I thought he was going to make the usual points about American sovereignty and rights not applying to non-citizens, but instead we get this.