[hhw]

This is Canada. The fundamental tenet of our constitution (Charter of Right and Freedoms) is to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society as a whole. These rights that you personally feel are inalienable are not so here, and this is the way most of us would have it.

[aminok]

Rights are not country specific. They're inalienable or the entire concept of rights is meaningless (lest you agree that a Constitution that allows torture of innocent people means that people in that country have no right to not be tortured).

[orthecreedence]

Rights are privileges. Absent modern society, there are no rights. The strongest and the most influential make the rules.

The governing bodies that enforce these so-called inalienable rights are the ones that grant them as well, and it is up to them, and in many cases the people who comprise them, which rights are granted. Rights are not some absolute concept defined by Ayn Rand. They are an artifact of civilized society.

The property rights you describe are not as binary as you wish them to be.

[aminok]

Like I said, by your rationale, slavery doesn't violate people's rights in countries where slavery is legal.

Such a definition of rights would render the term meaningless.