The Next Rosa Parks?

[VAMatt]

VAMatt said:

Mr Puggsly said:

I could be wrong, but I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does exactly that.

Yes, it does. 

Legislators like to think that they grant rights.  But, they're wrong.  Whether or not a law claims something is a right makes no difference, philosophically speaking.  

Another way to think about it....

There are legal "rights" and there are human rights. 

Human rights are inalienable. They exist whether any government recognizes them or not.  A good example is free speech.  The right to speak freely exists.  If a government doesn't recognize it, and locks you up for saying something they don't like, they've violated your basic human rights.  

Legal "rights" are made up by guys in suits who think they're important.   A good example that we hear about in the USA these days is the "right" to an education.  That's not actually a right.  It cannot be, because it requires something from another person/entity.  The same can be said for healthcare, and many other things.  Those ain't rights in the philosophical sense.  They're only rights insofar as we allow the government to use doublespeak to convince us that they are.