I understand where you’re coming from. Misusing words consistently undermines their integrity until they mean little. I’m reminded of Moynihan’s ‘defining deviancy down.’
Rape has lost most of its meaning and emotive power as its definition has been diluted through misuse.
As to ‘rights’ would you agree the horse bolted the barn with the introduction of ‘civil rights?’ Would you agree that Right to Work is the same type of right as a civil right, an “enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury”?
At one time our society used the term “rights” correctly.
Probably the best example I can display is the plains Indians. Notice I didn’t say indigenous people or native Americans. Those are words that were invented to create a singling out of a group called Indians. So those words are misused, also.
The European settlers were welcomed by the Indians when they showed up to build their homes and farms. And in time, when some of those settlers turned into buffalo hunters, they took away the live blood of the Indians for the absolute wrong reason, money. And when gold was discovered and the farmers turned toward gold and kept encroaching on the Indians, and the Indians objected, the Indians were attacked, killed, and raped by the miners. This led to the Indians fighting back and we all know what happened to Custer when he went in to do a personal vendetta to kill the plains Indians. But, in time, the Indians were captured with two of their main chiefs, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse being murdered. (Crazy Horse by Indian soldiers in Ft. Robinson, Nebraska when he surrendered and refused to go into a cell) He was going to be imprisoned for trying to protect what belonged to him so his people and family could live a free life without bothering anyone as they had done for centuries.
So their privilege was the opportunity to live. Just like we did when we separated from England in 1783. They had a privilege which was created by a need for God’s gift, life. Did the Civil “Rights” constitute the compromise of life?
Rights, according to one definition, are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
But I’m sure you notice that these “rights” are man’s societal creation. And they are different with each society. Can people in Maine require their rights to be the same in Wyoming? Can people in China require their rights to be the same in Sweden?
So, as long as someone misuses the term the same as they mis-identify their rights, those rights are incorrect. And as long as the term is used to force obedience and solitude, it is not a privilege to be who you are, and it never could be a right unless it was defined by someone more “in charge” of all men. And that can only be God. And only God has absolute rights. Everything else is a privilege.
rwood