The problem I have with this formulation is that takes away any grounds for opposing the crimes of a tyranny. For example, in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan women who sought education were sometimes stoned to death. They had no legal right not to be - the law was very clear. Equally, they had no practical remedy - the Taliban death squads were powerful, ruthless and much better armed. So according to the formulation espoused above, they had no right not to be stoned to death.
And yet, I’m completely convinced that **DSYoungEsq ** and **Bricker ** feel that when these women were stoned to death, a great wrong was done to them. I’d be interested to hear what they think that wrong was as it doesn’t, on the face of it, seem to involve any violation of these women’s rights. They had no rights.
(Just to be completely clear: I’m not suggesting for a second that **DSYoungEsq ** and **Bricker ** find the stoning of women to death to be anything other than utterly abhorrent. It just looks like there’s an inconsistency between that moral instinct and their conception of rights as only existing where they can be enforced.)