Are rights objective?

[thadman]

Originally Posted by PeteMcK

I'm not sure the Pareto stuff applies to rights, from the wikipedia page 'there is no consideration of the equity of resource allocation' - which is what rights are in some way attempting to address...???

A Pareto optimal is a multi-dimensional optimal (N>1). Would you not admit that a network or society is multi-objective?

Many governments attempt to satisfy two objectives, "Efficiency of resource allocation" and "Uniformity wrt the distribution of resources amongst individuals". We may relate the first objective to a function wrt the X dimension and the second objective to a function wrt the Y dimension. True capitalism attempts to maximize the first objective (1,0), while true communism attempts to maximize the second objective (0,1). An optimal that involves N>1 objectives is a Pareto optimal.

[Borat]

WRONG.

Individual on a deserted island does have rights. He has the right to smoke Marijuana for example.

The only rights he doesn't have at the ones that have to do with his relationships to other people.

The only rights society has the authority to deny an individual are ones he didn't in the first place have in his solitary existence.

To deny any other rights is tyranny, which is what we have today.

Also according to Nietzsche the optimal way to lead a life is not to be born, which is absolutely correct.