/32/ - Psychopolitics

Maybe you could start by posting and analyzing a lexical and encyclopedic definition?

Rights are simply freedoms which are protected by law.

Most have been conditioned into believing a right is something they are entitled to (and they are, as a citizen granted said right), but a right can be taken away -- The right to own slaves, for instance. What people are actually entitled to via mere existence is freedom.

To create a right, the freedom to do so must first exist. Rights impinge on absolute freedom. E.g., You have the freedom to kill anyone or anything. However, if you kill indiscriminately you will likely be punished unless you can demonstrate that the freedom you exercised was not prohibited by law, or that you had the right to do so in that it was enshrined in law.

In countries that have case-law which allow precedent setting decisions to become defacto laws, a freedom allowed by the courts in the the absence of a law becomes a right. People have been conditioned to expect that the exercise of most freedoms not forbidden by law will not be punished by courts. Therefore many conflate freedom with right and become confused about what you actually have the rights to do.

It's far less confusing to think in terms of what is Legal (allowed by law), and what is illegal (falls afoul of the law). A freedom need not be enshrined by a law in order for it to be allowed by the law. If a law explicitly protects a freedom, it is explicitly legal and a right. If a freedom protected by law is challenged in court then there exists prior legal framework to prohibit punishment for exercise of that freedom. Freedoms challenged in court it may become rights granted by prior case-law (meaning it may be protected by law). Both forms of rights can be revoked, but rights not explicitly granted by law are easier to overturn vs rights protected by case law.

In countries where citizens have freedom by default unless impinged upon by law, the freedoms not protected by law are often considered rights. However, these rights can be taken away by court decisions or new laws.

Would it be right to say that all rights demand duties?

I think of rights in the contractual sense, so let me use an example:
You buy a washing machine, and you and the store/maker/whatever sign a contract that guarantees you have a right to 90 days warranty. This means that if the machine breaks within those 90 days you have the right to take it to the technician and have it repaired for no charge. This is only applicable if the technician in question has a duty to fix your machine for free if it breaks within those 90 days.
On the other hand you have the freedom to sell that machine whenever you want, but that doesn't mean that anyone else has the duty to buy it from you.
From this I mean that freedoms (as it is being explored in >>>162) simply mean a lack of restriction, while a right means an entitlement, and every entitlement implies a duty.

Every person is capable of free speech (disregarding the mute and other specific cases), meaning that they may say whatever they want. "Free speech" says nothing about consequences or meanings. Only some nations guarantee the right of free speech, meaning that the state has a duty to protect the exercise of your freedom.

>>857
>Would it be right to say that all rights demand duties?

In the USA Congress upheld that the right to vote was purchased by one's duty to serve their country and thus be drafted if needed.

They also granted women the "right" to vote without requiring such duty. That means the majority of voters and swing voters, women, have the right to decide where men are obliged to die.

When I was born, I signed no contract and am not permitted to leave the country permanently either.

Rights are either merely freedoms guaranteed by laws, or we should be revoking women's voting rights (or making them sign up for selective service at 18) and fighting to have a signed citizenship agreement in place before border controls require non consensual passports.