Do they mean everyone has equal rights? That makes a little more sense, but it is not true. I do not have the same rights as someone living in Switzerland or China.
This is a point of disagreement, for me, then. It holds if you start from a premise that “rights” are things granted by laws and governments. Or, I guess, a premise that “rights” are “claims about what I should be allowed to do that I can reliably trust to hold in practice in my local environment.” It does not hold if, like many Enlightenment philosophers, you start from a premise that rights are things humans have automatically (either from God, or because there’s no prohibitions against them in a state of nature, for example). In this model governments and laws can protect, preserve, or infringe on rights, but not grant them. This is why the US Bill of Rights has only negative rights (restrictions on government power) and no positive ones.
This is a point of disagreement, for me, then. It holds if you start from a premise that “rights” are things granted by laws and governments. Or, I guess, a premise that “rights” are “claims about what I should be allowed to do that I can reliably trust to hold in practice in my local environment.” It does not hold if, like many Enlightenment philosophers, you start from a premise that rights are things humans have automatically (either from God, or because there’s no prohibitions against them in a state of nature, for example). In this model governments and laws can protect, preserve, or infringe on rights, but not grant them. This is why the US Bill of Rights has only negative rights (restrictions on government power) and no positive ones.