Theoretically speaking, should rights be primordial and innate,

>>3013083
Human rights were a mistake

>>3013083
How is this even a debate?

If your government gives you your rights, they can fucking take them back.

retards keep forgetting that the original subject of human rights comes from social contracts. It's only until the retarded frogs got to it that people started assuming that it was a given.

Government protects you and allows you certain liberties
and in return you care for and obey that government

We expect liberties from America because it was kinda promised from the get go we have it in writing (the constitution) and everything.

When in Saudi Arabia you shouldn't expect shit apart from what is in the Quran.

>>3013134
If rights are innate they'll never conform to changing circumstances.

If everyone has a right to he pursuit of happiness for example, but then some develop in genetic modification allows the isolation of a genotypical profile that makes people predisposed to being remorseless killers. They're normal other than the fact that killing makes them happy and they don't have a natural negative response to it. Should they be included in pre-established rights to the pursuit of happiness? Any enumeration of rights makes some foundational assumptions about the subjects of those rights. If the subjects differ from the archetypical ones on which the rights are based then they cease to funtion as intended. Some tweaking may be necessary as the world changes or perhaps just to ammend the mistakes of those who enumerated them previously. Such as:

"All men are created equal... except niggers and chinks."

(ammendment)

"All men are created equal."