[Pontiac]

There are two avenues by which to address the truth of the natural basis of human rights… In my account they are put into a hierarchical order, analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: the most basic needs should be satisfied first for everyone before addressing other needs (the claim for food and water by person X trumps the claim for a new car by person Y).

What this idiot is trying to do is justify the welfare state as ensuring basic human rights.

[Zeko]

Note the use of the word “should” in the essay. Probably without knowing it, the author has implicitly assumed what he is trying to disprove; the moment he uses words like “should” or “ought” in discussing rights, he has assumed the pre-existence of a right.

Unless he does this, he has no basis for asserting that his “hierarchy of rights” is preferable to, say, Jack London’s “law of club and fang” — oppress the weak and obey the strong (which is observed in nature far more often than his hierarchy).