Comment: Is a "right" something that can be "owned" anyway?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What are your thoughts on (see in situ)

Is a "right" something that can be "owned" anyway?

Positive or negative?

Sounds like a lot of tripe, right? Of course there are rights. Without rights, needs go unaddressed. When I need to keep someone from infringing on my rights, I must be able to point to some code, or law, or something, which lets everyone know I'm either claiming jurisdiction over a certain thing or claiming that no one may claim jurisdiction over a certain thing. It's the constitution of my me, laid out for all to see.

Here's the thing, though, about the thing: how far down does such a stack-o-turtles go? I mean, not only the depth, really, not just the futile search for the "ultimate authority" or the "knowable justice" at the heart of the soul or the soul of the heart, but also the breadth too, which begs the question of just how many different codes and laws and functionary middlemen would be necessary to provide adequate protection for even the bravest individual ego. So what society needs is someone with a pure super-ego to write a document that describes all possible things in all possible ways using all possible languages and all possible sentence structures.

Seems doable. Just don't give a name to such a god of such-and-such commandments.