Ahh... So things like love and honor and mercy don't exist either... After all, they are not 'things' either.
Here's an idea:
Love is an EMOTION.
Honor is an expression of human BEHAVIOR.
Mercy is an expression of human BEHAVIOR.
Therefore, since emotions and human behaviors exist, those feelings and actions can be said to exist.
A "right" is a flawed concept that cannot be defined. I'll leave it to the student to learn the concept of "definition". But since people cannot agree on it's definition, how can it be said to exist? Define "unicorn". Do they have to poop rainbows, or is that only idea a certain set of people hold them to? If we got everyone to agree that unicorns poo Skittles, would they then achieve objective reality?
No. Because unicorns don't exist. They are a figment of imagination.
Rights don't exist. One person's right is another person's "weapon of war". They are a figment of human imagination, convenient shorthand for discussion. It's easier to tell the ignorant and unsophisticated that they have a "right" to healthcare...they're too stupid to understand the nuances of meaning.
Shall we talk about the "right to life"? How'd that work for the people who didn't get a seat on the Titanic's lifeboats?
It's a CONCEPT. It's easier in the human psyche, which is focused on material possessions and emotional links, to talk about the "right" of the child to live and how evil it is for the child's mother to murder it. It's a convenient mental shorthand.
Rights are "inalienable" only insofar as the authors of the Declaration meant that governments were not supposed to intrude. That it is immoral for governments to do so.
There's no enforcement mechanisms. "Rights" get violated every day. Hey! How about our "right" to free and fair elections? How's that one holding up? How's the government record on protecting that one?
Then you are left with nothing more than the French 'Rights of Man' - The veritable anchor of socialism... Careful what you wish for. What Man endows, Man can take away.
What Yah endows requires an higher court than any man can attend or influence.
That is a mighty difference... And one you are in dire error in not understanding.
Who endows? If you're going to enter into a debate claiming someone gave someone else something, not only are you then facing the obligation to show that the something given actually exists, but you might be called on to demonstrate that the giver is as real as the gift.
MY method doesn't require any magic tricks or superstitions. People don't have rights. That means they don't have the moral authority to command how others live their lives. They don't have the right to tell someone to shut up, to stop praying to their Someone Else, to not associate with "those" people, to stop bugging their government, to not buy guns, to not do this, that or the other whatever thing it is the would be tyrants don't want done.
People not only have the freedom to say "no", they have to freedom to refuse to obey orders.
And if you're going to then claim that groups make the laws, and that rights are not the product of laws...as your assumption that "rights" are the "gift" of some magical being, you're absolutely right. Since rights do not exist, they are granted neither by groups nor gods.
This whole argument about the origin of rights vanishes when the proper perspective is achieved.
Since rights don't exist, the most pressing question the oppressed class can ask, "what gives you the right to...?" acquires new meaning. No one gave the oppressor the right to do ...? because they simply don't have that right at all.
So, rather than engaging a Rodent in a futile argument about whatever right of yours he's violating, take the easy course and tell them to piss off because they don't have the right to give you orders.
