You define a right as given by authority, which must be enforced perfectly. Therefore if a right is not "perfectly enforced", it is not a right, yet you admit that the state cannot "perfectly enforce" them. If rights must be perfectly enforced and people die, there is no right to life ever, state or no. If people rob, rape, etc, and get away with it, then there is no right not to be robbed, raped, or whatever.
You define right incorrectly. Your definition, a rule of conduct/behavior enforced by authority, is closer to the definition for a law, not a right. A right is that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Again, rights are not that which must happen, they are that which should happen.
You have defined a right as something which logically cannot exist, a kind of super, unbreakable law. But you know better than this. You know that a right does not depend on its defense. In saying that the state gives rights, you recognize that they cannot promise that these rights will never be abridged, nor even that the guilty will be punished. The right itself has nothing to do with whether or not it is abridged, it is simply a recognition of that which is right: that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. You may still not believe in them, but you cannot argue that they don't exist because they don't fit your definition. |
