[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. We can objectively determine if I have three frozen pizzas delivered to my door every morning. They are either there or they are not. That quality, for us to be able to objectively determine if the condition is violated or not, is a *necessary* criteria for rights. It is not a *sufficient* one, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that you don't see the consequence of your statement. For any right that you claim, it only takes one person to claim that it is not your right for you to "lose" that right under the necessity of "objectivity".

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I didn't say that what is and is not a right is objective. I said that rights must have objective criteria.

Read it again:

[ QUOTE ]
There may be some disagreement on what is a right and what isn't, but whatever the particular right is, there *must* be a way to *objectively* determine if the right is being violated. If there isn't, it can't be a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being the winner of a head-to-head 100-meter dash is objective. The rules are laid out, if you start after the gun and cross the line first, you win. This doesn't mean you have a right to win 100-meter dashes.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that there can be disagreement about what is objectively observable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there can be *disagreement* about a lot of objective things. People are flat-out wrong about all sorts of factual, provable stuff all the time.