Yet people would call me an insecure creepy troll if I said I have dozens of different nicknames on the same general spaces.

There’s something unpleasantly psychopathic in emotion about BtVS, but this one moment was funny.

You may think whatever you want, you don’t even need to have negative feelings about it.

But you’ve got no clue at all.

You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn’t like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can’t touch you because you got rights?

It’ll just be a violated right. As that’s treated always.

And you don’t seem to understand that when “right” is treated as a thing separate from “law”, arguments functional against “law” are not arguments functional against “right”.

But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country’s leadership doesn’t care, as seen by the US.

Which doesn’t change if it’s a right or not. It’s in the word. You are either in the right or in the wrong. If you’re in the right, that doesn’t guarantee you anything in the physical world. That’s the point of such an entity.

And having these “rights” means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there’s no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.

Wrong. Having a common frame of reference means a lot as a precondition for other things.

Say, having a program supporting some Kademlia-based protocol doesn’t guarantee you to find other nodes supporting it, or to find a file or other resource you look for on them, or that someone won’t block it. But it’s better than if people can’t agree on any protocol, but, suppose, MS and Apple can.

I think you shouldn’t treat things you don’t understand so arrogantly.

Rights don’t exist. They are social conventions based in law. If you don’t have a law or the law isn’t enforced then you don’t have a right.

That’s your opinion which was a minority one in most of the world for most of history. Including such counterintuitive parts of it as China.

Contrary to the name, there are no basic, inalienable human rights.

Says who and based on what?

If your right is not supported by law, it does not exist.

And from which hairy arse would a law gain justification to determine someone’s rights?

You are likely from one of the countries with English-derived legal system, where the precedent mechanism literally means that there are non-codified rights outside of the law, which the interpretation of the law has to approximate.

First, my anachronistic shithole of a country would be Russia.

Second, I said right, not law. Rights are more transcendent.

I said constitutional law, not the US constitution alone. Including declaration of independence and the surrounding history of discussion and all. Also not “says that people have”, but recognizes it as an inherent right. Naturally if such a right exists, either no law can retract it or it would be meaningless.

And then please show me how this right to rebellion was applied when an actual rebellion occured.

I don’t see how this is relevant. If you think it is, please explain how, explicitly and not implicitly.

(Also one would guess that slaveholders’ right to rebellion is in significant doubt.)

And please also take into consideration any laws regarding treason or domestic terrorism.

Can’t override constitutional and inherent rights. Also if you don’t recognize the latter, it’s too bad but your country’s founding documents do as a basis. Basically the US constitution is toilet paper compared to unstated but mentioned in d.o.i. inherent rights, and any normal law is toilet paper compared to the US constitution.

And people who made that system were very well educated, also very practical, and explained very thoroughly why should any system of formal rules be possible to discard by force and why inherent rights not prone to degeneracy of any formal system driven by power should exist in philosophy. They were not XX and XXI centuries’ idealists with overvalued ideas, or idiots dreaming of totalitarianism with those like them on top.

Their “oligarchs”. LOL.

That’s a different part of the world, it’s not “oligarchs”, it’s just the government and politicians and a significant part of society in every European country. Eastern Europe might even be a bit better in this regard than Western, because of relatively recent historical memory.

You have to deserve “oligarchs” first. They didn’t. You ask some granny in any European country, that granny will likely be in favor of full-on totalitarianism because they are a law-abiding society and there should be order, and people thinking they have natural rights are extremists.

You in your land of the weird joke about “freedumb” and “mass shooter rights” and “free hate speech”, not understanding that the reason Europeans too joke about those is not them seeing your problems as they are, but because they (except for France and maybe some Scandinavian ones, and, eh, maybe Switzerland) unironically have problems with the ideas of freedom, equality, limits of mandate, right to rebellion and free speech. Half the European nations are monarchies or recent monarchies or recent fascist nations or ex-Commie nations.

You there joke about these treating it as a given that you have those rights, just some jerks abuse them, while Europeans joke because they don’t have those rights and don’t treat them as certain. There’s nothing in UK’s or even Germany’s constitutional laws that admits that their citizens are free people with right to rebellion and to freedom of expression and association, even if someone in some other law writes that they are not.