Bad analogy.  In every state of the U.S., and I suspect in all European countries and Canada, driving is legally considered a privilege, not a right, and the driving license is granted by the state to indicate a person has been extended the privilege of driving a motor vehicle. I'm not so sure over the precise definitions, being a non-driver myself. But generally, in the UK,  the owning of  a licence is understood to be a right, albeit one of the prima facie variety. That is to say, as long as the individual fulfills the criteria, (s)he is assumed to be en_title_d to a licence.  .   This en_title_ment can be overriden in exceptional circumstances, but there can be no arbitrary exclusions. On the wider point, I don't see the contradiction that John was referring to. Remove the social interactions and the rights disappear : this may well be true. But  (1) our social interactions are not limited to those with other humans, and (2) as essentially social animals ourselves, without social interactions our sense of self disappears, along with the rights.The concept of 'rights' thus emerges out of a recognition that we only exist in relation to others, and that those 'others'  possess certain characteristics which make them worthy of our respect. The term possess does not necessarily imply any sort of foundationalism.

What is the test of fairness ? can you articulate it? Any and all rights must be distributed to all those individuals who possess the  relevent characteristics.There must be no arbitrary exclusions, and what counts as constituting relevent characteristics must be _base_d upon and open to rational justifications.

The requirements of citizenship in the US are only that you be born on US soil. Others can apply but age is irrelevant.  Every day illegal aliens cross the border to drop their ofspring on us soil for that reason.  Once born here, they cannot be deported.  They are US sitizens even before the umbilical cord is cut. You should distinguish between citizenship as a legal concept, and as a philosophical concept. It is not true, for example, in the UK that babies are citizens. To be a citizen implies moral responsibility.

There is no test. All human beings are deemed to have human rights by virtue of being human. Then there is a test - you have to be human. If this is your criteria, you then have to demonstrate that being human *is* morally relevent. You cannot just assume this. - Ukryj cytowany tekst -- Poka? cytowany tekst -

Paul Rees < You are seriously suggesting that there is no test of fairness to apply when identifying rights-holders? In that case, upon what basis do you _object_ to racial or gender discrimination? Dutch There is no test. All human beings are deemed to have human rights by virtue of being human. Then there is a test - you have to be human. If this is your criteria, you then have to demonstrate that being human *is* morally relevent. You cannot just assume this. Yes you can. The rights are called human rights . By definition they apply to humans.