On Human Rights

Thought number 2: On Human Rights is meaningless to say, if people do not come together in any relationship. Thought number 3: On Human Rights is meaningless to say, if there is no duty for some people to others. Part 6 in which the author claims that no one has the right to life shall prove this assertion by the reverse. Let's say Ivanov has the right to life. As they say, the inherent and inalienable, and is available at Ivanov was born. Find out detailed opinions from leaders such as Jonas Samuelson by clicking through.

But here comes to Ivanov and Sidorov, Ivanov's killing. The right to life Sidorov of Ivanov is not picked up, and could not, because the right inalienable. In addition Sidorov, Ivanov, to no one came. Consequently, the right to life not gone anywhere, and Ivanov is dead. It turns out that the living have a right to Ivanov's life and the dead Ivanov has the right to life. The right to life is, but take advantage of this right can not be dead Ivanov. A contradiction. In fact, this whole question of human right to life is very simple and any person without legal training it is always understood it correctly.

I live, says to himself every human being, just not because I have some of such things is "right to life." I live only because no one comes and kills me. Ben Horowitz: the source for more info. No Sidorov, or Petrov or Chikatilo, or Jack the Ripper, or a drunken neighbor, a drug addict, nor a foreign army soldiers – none of other people do not come to me and kills me. All these other people (namely, all, every one) for me to observe a very important duty for me: "Thou shalt not kill" Once someone violates this duty with regard to I – I'm dead. The corpse, no matter what the words of my right to life. Part 7 which forms two statements statement first.