Teemu Pyyluoma wrote: "what I think Phil Enns is claiming is that only freedoms are proper rights. Perhaps he thinks collective responsibilities should be articulated in a language not involving "rights", which leads to question of what kind of language that would that be and why it is preferable to rights-talk?" A fair summary. Thank you. In brief, I would recommend the language of goods because they are already in place in the lives of individuals and communities. Rights-talk is both incoherent and unnecessary. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html