Government - #101 - #10 - I'm at a loss as to "define" a right

What is it? …How many? …Where do they come from???

How often have you heard… “I have a right to that!”
True, everyone has a “right!”
Yeah! … But where do “they” come from?
Who “gives” ‘em that “thing”…that “right”?… How does a “right” stay alive?… Who maintains the “right”? Does a “right” really exist? …. How many of “them” are there?

Some countries and some societies claim different “rights”. As a matter of fact, some “rights” are rejected by some and accepted by others.
Don’t you think it would be a good idea to “first” state on what authority your “right” exists? If it happens to be the Constitution, then a short reference to the basis for your claim to a “right” is certainly in order. Because the American Constitution states “that all men are created equal” does not necessarily mean that in all societies “men are created equal”. What about “women”? …. Now who says what?

“The rights of the unborn” … The right of freedom of speech” … The right of free elections….. etc. What about these “rights”? How many people believe in the same “interpretation of these “rights”? How many societies have the same interpretation of what these “rights” mean? How many of these interpretations are acceptable? … And by whom?

So when you hear a cry for “rights”, when you hear a certain group claim the withholding of a “right”, when you hear “anything’ pertaining to a “right”, BEWARE! The source and interpretation of these “rights” are seldom discussed.
It is especially in the definition and “mutual” meaning of these “rights” that the difficulty starts. Little “meaningful” discussion can be held without mutuality. Mostly it becomes “oral static” … noise. Cries of anguish and shouts of alienation fill the air with recriminations. There is little meaningful or constructive dialogue. ….. .(Maybe it’s time “to take a nice warm bath”!)
Is a certain Government enslaved with the task of seeing that “rights” are adhered too? Do they do this with law and then with the threat of violence? Does this negate the very “rights” they are trying to enforce? Does “enforce” itself mean that “rights” are not always adhered too? … That there is also a “right” to enforce?

Are there “inalienable rights”? …. Kind of depends on who you’re talking about and to whom you are talking “with”!