Lots of thoughts, but here's what stands out:
I think there's a pragmatic case for rights.
First, they were historically connected to the memory of living under a government that blocked one's (a lot of ppl, actually) will from being enacted. Hence, they were pretty clearly designed to prevent a despotic regime from arising. These were rights granted to people specifically as a check against the rise of formal centralized power from arising and ossifying.
Secondly, the notion of democracy is based on the premise that you have a people capable of maintaining a popularly-governed governed society. Rights, in hence sense, (hypothetically) enable people to develop into the sort of person who can rise to democracy with fucking the whole thing up. So specific rights, like the Bill of Rights, are based on paper.
The problem comes when you run into reality.
In a defacto sense, rights are actually contingent on power or in the best case, responsibility (often these overlap).
Thus, limitations to rights are based and reality-pilled. If you think about a functional classroom where children learn, there is a clear division of rights (and responsibilities) between the teacher and student. The same could be said of any functional company, where a manager natural has more rights (often more supported by power than responsibility). That's not to say that children in classrooms or entry level workers don't have rights at all, but they're usually different from teachers or managers (and, in many cases, those in lower positions can often get away with more).
It's only natural that rights are differentially confer led on people with different roles and responsibilities. This is true even in 'socialist' countries.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.