Clearly this is nonsense:

> Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

So let me understand this argument ... my right to anything at all removes all other rights from others? Because the UK has universal healthcare, its people have no rights?

I suggest that the truth is not that exercise of one right diminishes all others 100%, but by some fractional percent. And that life, liberty and happiness are best served by a mixture of rights and liberty, not an extreme in one direction.

In the context of the entire paragraph, the author is stating that your right to something at another's expense is to the detriment of the other person's right to liberty. You may disagree but I believe there is certainly a tradeoff.

I don't think so.

To be more exact, you seem to have restated my own position, which is that your right to something at another's expense is to the detriment of the other person's right to liberty, and that there's a tradeoff. I.e. that your right to something reduces someone else's liberty, but by some fractional amount, not 100%. Hence, the trade off is a calculation you can make: how much right is worth exercising, given it costs a little liberty. Clearly here there is a sweet spot you wouldn't want to go beyond.

Where I disagree with your reply is that this is what the article says. Let's take a look at the paragraph in question:

> To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

My problem with this paragraph is the absolutist nature of it. There's no tradeoff here. In this paragraph, my right to anything at all means the other becomes rightless. It's all 100%, and in my opinion nonsense.

If you want to argue for a sliding scale of rights taken vs liberty given up, then I'd agree with you, but would also suggest that the article says the opposite.

"The American rights impose no obligations on other people"

What about the right to a fair trial by a jury?