&gt; But it&#x27;s not like there&#x27;s a natural force that ensures, compels, or mandates these rights.<p>A lot of really well regarded philosophers throughout the ages have disagreed with that.<p>&gt; I guess my point is that taken less cynically, rights... only exist [with] sufficient power<p>If I follow that line of thinking, justice is only an extension of power. I don&#x27;t think people agree with that.<p>I don&#x27;t believe you think that. Perhaps it&#x27;s just a matter of phrasing; surely we both agree that it&#x27;s important to recognize that people should <i>never</i> murder people. We use the word &quot;right&quot; because it&#x27;s important to be absolute in this rule.<p>It&#x27;s worth distinguishing between:<p><pre><code>  * life is not a right
  * we don&#x27;t have enough power to enforce murder laws
</code></pre>
...the second case is preferable, even if it may be hard to distinguish between the two looking down the barrel of a gun. If you believe in a deity, the could be justice in the afterlife. If you don&#x27;t, one can be justified in history, if nothing else. For example, we don&#x27;t say it was OK for Thomas Jefferson to own slaves because the U.S. didn&#x27;t have the votes to ban the practice altogether. We say the slaves had their rights violated, not that they didn&#x27;t deserve freedom and dignity because nobody could guarantee it.<p>tl;dr To say there are no absolute rights is to say there are no absolute wrongs.