Yeah the objective parameter is that rights shouldn't include silly things. You don't have a right to wear paisleys, you don't have a right to pick your nose, you don't have a right to see he Jackass movie, you don't have a right to have chocolate cake for breakfast, you don't have a right to be an annoying git. It's just logic man, when you establish something as a right then you're declaring that any interference with your ability to do it is wrong, so then suddenly if the vitamin industry goes TU because nobody wants their stuff this is a terrible thing that's destroying the rights of American.
You don't have a right to wear paisleys, you don't have a right to pick your nose, you don't have a right to see he Jackass movie, you don't have a right to have chocolate cake for breakfast, you don't have a right to be an annoying git.
If others can dictate the smallest details of my life, perhaps you can explain our country's claim to liberty? How does your version differ from that of oppressive countries?
Wrong. "The right to take vitamins" is merely convenient shorthand for "the right to take any vitamins that are your rightful property, and to seek ownership of vitamins through voluntary transactions with their current owners."