Health care/education is NOT a right

I must reject Cons argument that the constitution or law for that matter gives us any rights at all. The constitution or any "legal" document has no authority or obligation at all, unless between man and man. There is not enough space to go into how the constitution is a completely irrelevant document in todays day and age of law and reason, so I will refer you to the book from Lysander Spooner, "No Treason, The Constitution Of No Authority". In there is lays out how anything, including "rights", fall flat when it comes to the constitution. The same rational logic and understanding of law and reason you will find in that book, can be applied to other documents including the bill of rights. I will give a quote from the first page of the book to show how the lawyer Lysander Spooner logically breaks apart this "binding" contract. "They had no NATURAL power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the NATURE of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument (constitution) does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind any body but themselves.". The reason I am even telling the audience this is because Con, (as well as many others), is under the illusion that a government has authority to do anything at all, let alone "create rights". The only way a government does anything is by force. So just because a group of individuals write down something on parchment and claim it to be a right or for that matter a law is absolutely mad! The only thing they can do IS recognize that a right is there. As it has been before it was recognized. Con says rights are NOT like scientific law. When in fact they are. One has the freedom (right), by his/her own will, to use vocal cords to create speech. This has nothing to do with a government. It is the same as a dog being capable of barking, walking (freedom to travel), etc etc. So SCIENTIFICALLY because a human has the ability to speak, grow food, live, breathe, he/she has these rights (worldwide). That is why I made the claim "they just are", even though it sounded bad, can we see how the fact that we can make noise with our throats, use a tool to break ground and plant seeds, etc, these "rights" don't come from any government, they simply just are due to our natural ability to do things. When a government says you have a "right", lets not be so simple minded, as they are really saying "you have the privilege". Freedom of the press.. This summer alone, the media has been barred from the Jade Helm operations, as well as the Bohemian grove. So that, in all reality, is a privilege. One government says we all can go to school. Its a right!! However in some countries in the middle east, women are barred from getting an education. Again, another privilege. So is it logical to say, "American humans have rights, but Iraqi women don't because their government said so."? Absolutely not! This is such an irrational thought process I was laughing while writing it. Things like education and health care are not a right (regardless of what a group of individuals write on a parchment and "declare" it to be with their "mighty" authority), simply because in order for something to be a right, everyone must be able to do it ("HUMAN" not just American) at the same time (speak, breathe sleep) This is why I don't need to address all of the so-called "rights" my opponent laid out. If one group of people say (U.N.) "we think these are rights all humans have", and another group of individuals (ex: a group that believes in sharia LAW) says "No way women cant vote, the cant have education.", Which arbitrary group of laws created by man should we adhere to? This is the logical conclusion. Man cannot make rights. Man can make privileges that he can take away or not whenever he pleases as he will use force to do it (this, using logic and reason, does not make him legitimate). Man CAN recognize a right that has been here. It is the same as gravity. Man did not create gravity. Man recognized gravity, then called it gravity, the word "gravity" being a concept. My opponent has been a challenge! I hope to keep in touch with him! Thank you everyone!