Obligation Virses Right

How many of you know the difference between an obligation and a right?

I ask this because of a graphic I saw being shared out by some of my left leaning friends.  In it they blast Ran Paul taking a comment out of context in which he said we do not have a right to water.

Taken as is it does sound like a shocking thing to say, after all without water a human can only last around 3 days.

In his full statement, found HERE, he states the following:

As humans, yeah, we do have an obligation to give people water, to give people food, to give people health care. But it’s not a right because once you conscript people and say, ‘Oh, it’s a right,’ then really you’re in charge, it’s servitude, you’re in charge of me and I’m supposed to do whatever you tell me to do. . . . It really shouldn’t be seen that way.

Of course in the image provided by the left, they ignore his comment stating we have an obligation to help others and instead make him out to be this horrible uncaring person who would refuse water to a dying person because after all it isn't a right.

Think about the distinction though.  Once you consider something a right, then people who need or want that commodity defined as a right can just demand it.  If that require requires others to perform a service then they essentially become your slaves, forced into having to provide you with your right even if you cannot afford to pay them for their services.

This is why the 2nd amendment is written as the right to bear arms and not the right to arms.  If it were written as the right to arms then gun manufacturers would be required to provide anyone who wanted a gun with one.  Their labor would be required without any compensation being given back.

If you had a right to food then farmers would be your slave, required to grown crops which you could then just taken without paying them for their service.

To get water from the ground and delivered to your homes, wells must be dug and pumps must be put in.  Those pumps require electricity to run which has a cost associated with them.  If water were a right, then who would bear the costs of those wells and pumps and the cost of the labor of others required to provide that water to your house?

That is why Rand Paul is correct about it being an obligation but not a right.  If a fellow man is laying in the road dying of thirst then as a fellow human the moral thing to do is give him some water from your own supply.  It's an obligation.