(its how I learn)
So who then chooses? Is it right (ironically) that they (whoever they are) have that choice?
the only reason to make something legal is to insure no negative impact in view of governmental advice and consent it is a lawful process in my opinion
rights are legal parameters and have nothing to do with morals in my opinion
Is it right? I believe so, we aspire to give people the rights they need. If you don't like it, you should have the choice to pack it up and live in the wilderness, which is possible.
Sounds to me that you are speaking on behavioral laws.
Or at least I hope so.
Remember. You cant have rights (in law) without responsibilities.
Every time we create a "right" we use force to undue other "rights"
and pile on responsibility.
Would it not be better to just use morality? Morality as defined by a set
of immutable principals for human behavior in groups?
not bound by passports. Clarify, if you care to. Furthermore as I use
my passport abroad it does not alleviate me of learning and indeed
being forced to follow/concede to rights of current location. When in
Rome as it where...my passport does not carry my Canadian given
rights to north Korea. I get that is not what you are saying exactly.
Just think passport is actually of way of proving how wrong "rights" are
when getting to be doled out by law as appose to morality.
If each country was an island unto itself with no contact this may be applicable.
The way in which someone has access to life sustaining materials will change
greatly given topography. So obviously local rights become inherent to that
locale only. May not even make sense elsewhere. Yet universally morals
are true and good or best ought to be given abolishment of the ID or
ego built in group thought.
If I look at the Declaration, it states freedom, justice and peace, which I believe to be moral.