Rights are permissions granted to an individual or group of individuals by other individuals or groups (society).
Rights are dependent on the grantor.
Rights, at the legal level, are protected by laws. Violation of rights are punishable by law. Not all societies grant the same rights. Some societiers grant no rights to individuals. Some societies grant only the rights according to the current ruler.
I would argue this.
All rights are derived from Property. Full stop. That is what separates a (wo)man from a defined slave or slavery in of itself. If you do not even own yourself, or you under the care and responsibility of someone granting you your existence for the lack of a better word. That is a Slave.
A right is not something you can give or take away from someone. You can give or take away someones privileges however. Or as even our own US Government is famous for for the last 140yrs or so now is circumventing the Constitution for profit but that's a whole other Maury Povich show.
A so called society does not nor cannot "grant you rights" and to say they can alone is an infringement on/of your rights. That's clearly "Rights violation(s)" or being violated. In most places in the world, there's some argument to whether there's a 195 or 194 countries in the world depending on how you feel about Ireland or Isreal's recognition but in all of the world, there are still basic human rights and yes, you would be CORRECT that those people and their rights get tresspassed on by the thousands worldwide and daily.
Its like the argument to whether something is legal or illegal which I find to be abhorrently inaccurate words by definition but in the commercial world, they are fitting - by those who operate within the system.
In all honesty, they mean little to some of us. They're merely words that describe the abilities or actions someone else says you can do. Not because of any moral reasoning or for your safety but merely for the fact that another (wo)man states that you can not do or must perform some action. NO other man should be really doing that but hey, I know it's 2020 and as Ice Cube once said, "People don't know how to act".
But here is why and how I justify the use of two better words. "Lawful" and "unlawful". Why you might wonder? Because they add morality to everything under the highest law in the land and from our creator (whomever that may be to you), Gods Law, sometimes referred to as natural Law which is what common law is based on.
Taking the above scenario for example, the slave or the sovereignty of a man. It can be understood by saying, and speaking on behalf of the US here;
"At one time in this country, it used to be "LEGAL" to own a slave or slaves. However, that doesn't mean it was a "LAWFUL" act."
Do you see what happens there? You added morality and accountability to whom it belongs to.. not permissions from another man whom is and should be equal to you.
Here's another one.
"It is "ILLEGAL" to fish in that river but, if you pay me for permission [a license (?)], you can fish in that river." Here you take a a RIGHT to feed ones self, and take it away as if it was a privilege, then SELL him back his right, PROFITING from them, and giving them a permission to do something that would otherwise be "ILLEGAL". right?
No.. Your rights are yours from your creator, again whomever you may believe that is, I know there are several cultures on here. To trespass peoples rights is unlawful, even if they're in a uniform. I'm sorry you can claim 11th amendment all you want, qualified immunity, whatever.. Violate my rights, you can take someones life as they know it away from them.
In the US you have rights, The Constitution was written to outline to the Government what those rights are and inform GOVERNMENT what their limitations are... Not yours, and you have courts to use them in to get remedy or redress.
The Constitution doesn't grant you your rights and is often stated in deep error in such words. The Constitution is one of 3 most prestigious documents in this country but it is only a very large sheet of hemp paper. If you were to shred it up or burn it you would still have your rights! However, that action would unhinge the Country as a sovereign Democratic Republic to which would no longer exist under the actions of Congress.
Remember at one time President Lincoln was not only not a President for 45 days because of this, but the country technically did not exist during those 45 days either.
Back to the above topics of rights. And this is the part out of all this you may actually want to write this down or copy paste into a Word Document the following:
-- 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights;
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
-- 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law;
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
And don't forget...
-- 42 U.S. Code § 1983.Civil action for deprivation of rights;
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)