[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not that rights are objectively determined, its that rights have to be consistant among all members of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I have a right to sustenance, but I don't have anything to eat, while you do. When I ask you for some food, you laugh in my face. Therefore:

Approach 1: if it's inconsistent, it can't be a right by definition, and therefore "there is no right to sustenance".

Approach 2: the right to property can, and does, conflict with the right to sustenance. Therefore, I have some sort of right to eat some part of your food. I'll probably have to pay you back for it, but you can't hoard it and laugh in my face.

You might prefer approach 1, but at which point is approach 2 logically inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot approach 3: there is no right to sustenance.