Health care/education is NOT a right

In the last round, my opponent articulated at least a partial theory of rights, based on the idea that rights are grounded in the physical ability of people to perform actions - these actions are then "rights," like the "rights" to speak, walk, grow food, etc. that my opponent identifies. But there are several immediately obvious problems with this theory of "rights": -First, one cannot coherently derive from this theory the primary "right" relied on by Pro throughout this discussion - the right to be free from coercion. Some people are physically capable of physically coercing others - why is it not their "right" to do so? Now, my opponent might appeal to universality in order to negate this point - that not *everyone* is capable of such domination, and therefore the ability of some to coerce others is not a "right. " I would point out that not everyone is physically capable of speech, or of walking, or of growing food - do the mute, the wheelchair-bound, or the physically weak negate the rights my opponent listed? If not, is it simply because the *majority* of people are able to exercise these rights? If so, then we are back to simple majoritarianism, which my opponent rejects. -Second, how does a theory of rights based on physical capability reject a right to education or healthcare? People are capable of learning. People are capable of healing. How are these not then rights? -Third - and this is merely a side-point for my opponent's consideration, since it does not directly respond to any specific argument above - how does one derive a right to property merely from physical capability? If people are physically capable of growing food on the same land, how does this justify one person fencing it off and appropriating what had been used in common? -Finally, even if we accept the non-coercion principle as a second theoretical axiom, there are plenty of awful things we can do to each other without coercion. Do people have a natural right to masturbate in front of children just because they are physically capable? If you say yes for the sake of consistency, then I must reject your theory of rights as incapable of recognizing what I suspect is nearly universally a morally revolting notion. I suspect my opponent is incapable of articulating a coherent theory of rights because his primary interest is in developing a philosophical fig-leaf for a radical anti-government ideology. But my opponent's rejection of law as a source of rights - and therefore of Rule of Law as a positive force in human history - is deeply misguided. My opponent abhors force and coercion, but doesn't seem to realize that these are, to all available evidence, an inherent part of the human condition. Without a government in place, the human condition resembles Hobbes' state of nature, or perhaps present-day Somalia - the war of all against all, with life nasty, brutish and short. Governments - even many repressive ones - are generally an improvement on this situation. Even better are those governments in which leaders are constrained by a public set of rules (laws), and even better still are those in which citizens have a say in what those rules are. I reject my opponent's argument that government lacks authority except through force - government (and even more so, constitutional, rights-based government), is a restriction on force. Compared to my opponent's never-tested theory which rejects Rule of Law as a premise, I can point to the successes of democracies around the world in advancing human rights, even as those records are not perfect. I'll take the real-world evidence of Rule of Law any day. People aren't under "illusions" about the source of governmental authority - they simply rationally prefer a regulated monopoly on force to an unregulated, entrepreneurial model of violence. So, to the last point, which is again whether education and healthcare can be recognized as rights. My opponent correctly notes that these rights are routinely denied by nations around the world - and the crisis of women being restricted from education is particularly pointed. He also asks a fairly profound question - "Which arbitrary group of laws created by man should we adhere to? " It's a great question, but my opponent is apparently blind to the fact that his idiosyncratic philosophy of voluntaryism is just as arbitrary and man-made as any other. But recognizing a concept as man-made, or even arbitrary, does not limit its usefulness - just like the days of the week are arbitrary, man-made, and useful by common assent. I do agree that rights, as defined by law, are man-made. So what? They have greatly increased the measure of human flourishing in the world. Show me a better system - and more to the point, demonstrate a way to leverage power in favor of human development superior to legal rights - and sure, let's go with that. But my opponent has failed to do so. I don't agree that rights are arbitrary. They've been developed over centuries, through institutions designed to maximize democratic legitimacy, to further the goals of human freedom. That some nations violate these rights is no reason to throw them out the window. Rather, that serves as an incentive to strengthen rights through governmental and international institutions, so that when rights are violated, the violators can be held to account. Thus, I stand resolved that education and healthcare are rights, for the reasons stated in the first two rounds. My opponent has failed to provide a credible rebuttal as to why the international recognition of these rights should be rejected.