what kind of rights?

How are we defining each of these rights?

we can decide the details later.

Yes, but this is far too general. I think every philosophy on earth would agree with that statement. However they all differ on define what exactly constitutes each.

Im going to agree with GI Jack without changing my vote. I think after this we should explore specifics and propose much more specific stuff.
This general issue is already in the core planks.

eh, the wikipedia pages on each of those specify very specific topics and examples.

Here is some information:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm

http://www.animaljusticeparty.org/portfolio/bats-flying-foxes/

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

http://www.ibcr.org/eng/programme-enfantsjustice.html

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#H5

http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/default2.aspx

There is a lot to cover regarding civil, human, animal or natural rights. It's not a simple thing.

We should discuss it. Also, the act of linking PETA and Ann Rynd is not to be interpreted as approval or recommendation of their policies.

@nicholasdesalvio Would you just pop the definitions that you use in the description so that we know how to frame the conversation?

Is Bored

These days, a lot of human rights denial comes down to money. If you don't have enough money (or have bad credit) you're not allowed to get a place to live, you're denied access to transportation, to an Internet connection, to, well, food. These things aren't exactly luxuries anymore, they're essential. And poor people are put at a tremendous disadvantage.

(And oh, by the way, a disproportionate amount of poor people are black and brown, queer and trans, etc. With classism, our society has found a way to be racist and bigoted without "actually" being racist and bigoted.)

A lot of faux-libertarians defend this as "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome." So! Crazy idea! What if we stopped seeing money as the outcome, and started recognizing it as the opportunity?

Because, seriously, how many people actually WANT lots of money? No. They want the stuff they can GET with lots of money. They want the freedom to do and have what they want. That's the outcome.

This is why Martin Luther King, near the end of his life, started calling for an unconditional basic income. As in, we literally just give everyone a minimum amount of money. Unconditionally.

On the Pirate front, doing that kind of thing would certainly make it easier to abolish intellectual property. Because now people would be free to make art and technology as much as they pleased, and not have to worry so much about whether they'd get a return on investment. You want to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"? There ya go!

I'm not particularly concerned with how politically difficult that would be to achieve. We're the god damn Pirate Party; if we weren't radical it wouldn't make any sense.

@amandajohnson What definitions?

even worse than access to material goods, even those to survive, is lack of equality of dignity and human being status.

Even among people who have enough to get by, those who are "more successful", are given privledges and immunity from prosecution, and the right to abuse and harm those who are lower on the totem pole. This of course is unspoken.

But you know damn well, if any of us, even middle class, were walking around with 60k work of coccaine in a suitcase, there is not getting out of a distribution charge, and a lifetime in jail.

Charlie Sheen? He gets praised for it.