If he's going to clarify things, he should first focus on what he means by right, and what having one means (as opposed to not having it). Also his comment about location being central and not DNA seems wrong. DNA is essential to being able to do those things without being opposed.

Eh, I see some errors in this.

We have human rights. There are a few really basic ones that most cultures and societies agree on. Murder is bad. Theft is bad. That kind of thing. Them agreeing on them doesn't mean anything more than that they're so obvious, most cultures tend to identify and agree.

Where you are born doesn't determine whether you have these human rights, it just determines whether the society you're living in protects them. If this weren't the case, nobody could ever criticize the human rights record of another country or society, because by the authors definition, those peoples rights were never violated. The society never granted them those rights, so they were never violated. But looking in, seeing rape and murder committed with impunity? I think we should be capable of seeing that peoples basic human rights are being violated.

Some cultures are just better than others. The best ones, work to protect our human rights, some or all of which could then be called civil rights, but otherwise get the fuck out of the way. America was initially founded on that concept in the Declaration of Independence, in which Americans felt their god given human rights were being molested by the British, and said No More.

Honestly, I think the concept in this article is dangerous. That we must derive our rights from our Government? Fucking terror.