As observed elsewhere, rights are the flip-side of obligations - one person's right is another's obligation.

• Your right to not be assaulted is everyone else's responsibility to not assault you.
• Your right to keep possession of your property is everyone else's responsibility not to steal it.

These are obvious truisms, so let's apply the same logic to other things which are frequently claimed as 'rights':

• "I have the right to a adequate medical attention" is the same as saying that others in society have an obligation to pay for your medical attention.
• "I have the right to a free education" is the same as saying that others in society have an obligation to pay for your education.
• "I have the right to a flush toilet" is the same as saying that someone else has an obligation to supply you with one, and to install and maintain it.
• "I have the right to a comfortable house" is the same as saying that someone else has an obligation to build one for you.

It's not really clear why someone who chooses to run with the bulls has a right to take someone else's money by force to pay their self inflicted medical bills.

Whenever you declare a right for an individual, you are in fact declaring an obligation on others. This in itself does not make it a bad thing, but it is a useful parity check on those who make claims about the nature of human rights. A typical conversation goes:

R: Give me an example of a fundamental right.
L: I would say that everyone has the right to a flush toilet.
R: So if you have the money, you are obliged to buy and install one for me?
L: Well yes, if you can't afford it yourself.
R: So even if I am not prepared to work for it, I am still entitled to it?
L: Umm ..
R: And what if I deliberately smash it after it is installed - are you obliged to fix it for me?
L: No of course not.
R: Then I don't have a fundamental right to a flush toilet.
L: Umm ..

Typically they modify their statement to say that everyone has the right to the opportunity to work to buy a flush toilet. Then the argument revolves around what a fair rate of pay is - which is clearly quite different in the first world and the third world.

The clear conclusion is the right to flush toilet is not a right at all. It is simply a product which many of the Left want their fellow citizens to subsidize. We choose to place certain obligations on others because they suit ourselves. In a democracy we impose these obligations on people as sets of rules called laws. Because the majority of people voted for the representatives who make and enforce these laws, many of these are in the interests of the majority.

In practice many of them are perceived to be in the interests of the majority, but are not. Like subsidization laws which just allow people to vote themselves money through the public trough, while causing much more hardship through economic damage.

See

• Morality
• Freedom
• Government and Rights