If our analysis of the relationship between human nature and the existence of subjective rights is correct it is easy to see why the advocacy of human rights has to be wicked and even genocidal. Say that a certain politician, Reagan let us say, demands that human rights be everywhere adhered to and enforced. What he is in fact demanding,of course, is that his own community's code of rights be imposed upon all other communities and thus that their own different codes of rights be eradicated. That is a bit like performing cultural surgery upon a people and according to one of the clauses of its standard definition that constitutes genocide. Since, in addition, the very notion of a human right is fraudulent, the surgery in question has to constitute simple malpractice. It cannot be excused on the ground that one is improving the population in question's code of rights or some such thing. Analogously, a politician-say, Reagan-might claim that
English is the human language and so demand that all other languages be replaced by English. The perniciousness of any such ukase is transparent. But to the extent that notions of justice and rights are as vital to and cherished by their possessors as their language, equally pernicious and indeed vicious has to be the ukase implicitly contained in the modification of the noun, 'rights', by the adjective 'human'. I propose, therefore, that any sound-thinking-indeed, any morally concerned-person must be 'against human rights'.