Really tangled paragraph   The conception of a right to something that implicitly creates an obligation on someone else to provide that thing a positive right is widely challenged  You can not enforce your wish for something under the auspices of a right if it implicitly constitutes an obligation on another to do something for you  However one persons right to something creates a negative right in that you have the right for that thing not be interfered with by another and that other is obligated not to interfere with your right to it  The obligation test is widely used to determine what constitutes a right  To illustrate You have the right to own an axe but you do not have a right to an axe  If you do own an axe others have an obligation not to steal it  Ive got a postgraduate education and I had to read practically every sentence of this paragraph more than once to parse it And it has a lot of problems beyond that   Normally we avoid second person I dont see why it is needed here  widely challenged with no citation I have almost never seen this challenged except by liberatarians Im pretty confident that most people for example consider that the right to life extends to the point of creating an obligation for a government or society to attempt to rescue victims of a natural disaster I would doubt that there is a widely held belief that a person dying of thirst while someone next to him had abundant water could be reasonably expected to die respecting his neighbors property rights  By the second sentence this has switched to imperative or more precisely hortatory mode which is entirely inappropriate It becomes a statement of a narrowly libertarian conception of rights in the articles narrative voice  Again widely used without citation I cannot name a country where this in general has the force of law Certainly not the US one of the more libertarian countries in the industrialized world but one which recognizes a right to a publicly financed primary and secondary education  In short poorly written libertarian cant   Ill allow at least  hours and probably more for someone to rewrite this in a way that belongs here but if it hasnt been substantially fixed by then I intend simply to remove it