The U.S. Constitution says that basic rights are "self-evident and inalienable." Some such rights are listed in the "Bill of Rights." This means that there is an objective or universal origin to rights, and humans produce a limited attempt to represent them.

Governments grant and remove rights through laws. People must attempt to use such governmental controls to create a social order. While governments cannot be perfect, they are necessary.

There is a very basic and perverse error by conservatives in attempting to philosophize a perfect state for a social order, while perfection is not possible. In doing so, they go from bad to worse with human problems. The more realistic approach is to work toward continuous improvement through lesser of evils. This means defining the limits of human corruption, so some freedom can exist within the restrictions. By erasing the imposed limitations (deregulation and fakery of "small government"), anything goes; and that condition is what cerates unlimited human degradation.

Even if there were no sin, and satan did not have the power to run the world, the problems created by material life would require humans to compromise with imperfections in attempting to solve problems which cannot be totally solved.

What humans do with rights is limited and imperfect, not a reference for defining and purifying rights. The reference for rights is more basic and universal than human activity. The basic origin is what is meant by rights being self-evident and inalienable.

The origins of rights is in the fact that there are certain things which no one will allow to be done to themselves including perpetrators of wrong-doing. In fact, the most degenerate perpetrators of sin are the first to squeal when any wrong is done to themselves. Their own reactions show that there are universal demands involved.

If there were exceptions to rights, they would not be basic or universal rights, they would be arbitrary demands which need to be evaluated. Rights are something that cannot be altered arbitrarily. When someone mentions rights, they are saying arbitration is not allowed. Someone's analysis cannot change what rights are.

There are things which are always demanded. People never allow themselves to be harmed or degraded. Therefore, not having harm or degradation imposed onto a person is the basis of universal rights.

Finding exceptions does not change the concept of rights. Sometimes people willingly allow harm or degradation for various reasons. In fact, life always requires a high degree of toleration of being harmed. Such tolerance does not change what rights are, because it is superficial tolerance for limited purposes, where the person expects to be better off eventually. Material life is superficial compared to spiritual life, and therefore, a lot of material hardship is allowed for spiritual benefits later.

Police power is another exception. Police use force, and force is the basis of sin or injustice. It is necessary to prevent greater injustice. But the necessity does not convert force or injustice to virtue; it uses lesser injustice to prevent greater injustice. Using lesser injustice does not redefine justice or rights. It is still sin, but the sin belongs to the persons who create the problems.

Universal rights exists because there are invariable demands made by everyone, without exception, and are therefore not subject to arbitrary effects. Those things which are subject to arbitration are not rights.

Rights are characterized by the invariable demands of persons. The demands do not originate through analysis but through reactions. Since the demands are invariable, exceptions cannot be made for someone's fraudulent purposes.

But the uniformity or invariability of rights only describes them, not creates them. What creates rights? The right not to be harmed would exist for one person even if there were no one else who had similar concerns. Why?

Inherent in spiritual existence with a decision-making mind is a responsibility for self which includes the determination of what should happen to self. People have responsibilities for self as part of their decision-making process. Responsibility for self-includes the determination of what should happen to self.