[spunkets]

A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't. Govm'ts role is to protect rights, but there can be no guarantees.

[OWK]

A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't. Govm'ts role is to protect rights, but there can be no guarantees.

An important distinction.

But I was hoping to address the more fundamental question.

What ARE rights?

How do we know what we SHOULD consider a right, and what we should not?

[Teacher317]

A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't. Govm'ts role is to protect rights, but there can be no guarantees.

I guess what I mean is that the government could possibly (and should) guarantee/protect them. For Rights like "freedom to have a soul", the government could never address problem. I was leaning more towards the physically "doable" end of things, because of the many etheral rights that the Left would assert as "real" if it weren't stated... like the Right to good Karma, the Right to high self-esteem, the Right to be free from ever being inconvenienced, etc.

[jethropalerobber]

A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't.

a question: then how is it created and how does it exist? just as an idea in your mind?