the government must compensate them. The property is purchased, so the right is not abridged. If the government were to simply take the property, the right would be violated, but that wouldn't mean it wasn't a right. Violating rights doesn't make them not rights.
There are different levels of "rights," as well, from those considered "inalienable human rights" such as life, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, freedom to own justly acquired property, etc, to social, economic, and cultural rights, such as the right to vote, to over-time pay, to bear arms, etc. These are often achieved though some sort of social contract between the government and the governed, and can be changed. The flexibility of the contract in the second type of right (or privilege, if you prefer) doesn't change the nature of the first.
Rights themselves are that which *should* happen, whether by human nature, social contract, whatever the basis of the right- certains actions are right, and that which interferes with those actions is wrong. The "right to free speech" is therefore constrained by wrongful use of speech- no one has the "right to threaten."
Again, government doesn't permit rights-the government is not the final authority of what *should* happen. A good government recognizes human rights and enforces the social contract rights. A bad government doesn't recognize them or enforce them, and often violates them, but as I said before, violating rights doesn't make them not rights.
|
