Erik Corbett: Radicalized

Erik,

You have managed to conflate many different issues into one small editorial.

For the sake of space, I would like to just deal with your opening.

What is the difference between "human rights" and "human needs"?

Language and definitions are vital when it comes to Leftist/Marxist initiatives. Using the term "human rights" has a greater influence than "human needs” when seeking to change political will.

Research shows that using the term 'human rights' inherently demands action and accountability and thereby has been adopted as a tactic by the Left to expand the original intent of the term Human Rights as we Constitutionally understand it.

For instance, the Left postulates that “Energy is indispensable to providing basic needs, eradicating poverty and meeting sustainable development goals”. By structuring their argument this way they have now made electricity a “Human Right” vs. “Need”.

By using this logic you can say that the same is true for housing, food, clothing, medical services, phones, computers, air-conditioning, running water, indoor plumbing and on and on… Before you know it, based on one’s ability to argue their case, everything could theoretically be, “A Human Right”, including an income.

This “imperative agenda” is the key to developing a coherent and “appropriate legal response” required to advance a Leftist/Marist agenda.

"A 'human needs' approach appeals to charity, while a 'human rights' approach translates need into a matter of entitlement with dignity with potential legal merit.

You can apply the same logic for the abolishing of borders and the ownership of private property.

Not very American, that is for sure.