Answer:
Rights are natural and are endowed by the very nature of our existence. It then follows that we cannot be separated from them, they are inalienable. Rights can be abused, restricted in their use or made ineffective but they cannot be removed. A person can be punished for saying something unpopular but short of killing him that person can still say whatever he wants. Since a right is inalienable, it cannot be separated from a person that person cannot transfer it either. What would be the point after all since everyone is equally endowed with the same natural rights.
If that is understood then everything else conferred on us by society then should be recognized as privilege. The first right that applies to your question is the right to equitable treatment. Even the poorest has equal claim on services that are available. The second right in play here is the right to aquire property and to be secure in its ownership. When any outside force whether it is your neighbor or the government attempts to tresspass on your ownership of the property it is theft and a violation of the owner's rights.
To claim the poorest person has a right to services, equitable treatment sustains that right. But to claim that a person who cannot pay for that service but is entitled to it at another's expense is theft.
<h3>
<u>PLEASE</u><u> MARK</u><u> ME</u><u> BRAINLIEST</u></h3>
<span>cases arising under the federal Constitution, federal law, or treaties (federal question jurisdiction)
cases affecting ambassadors and other ministers from foreign states</span>
It is the '<span>Two men argue about whose football team is better.</span>' Because you can see that two characters are arguing about what football team is better.
Hi !
Pronouns ending in -self may not be used as subjects
example =
John and myself went to school = FALSE
John and I went to school = CORRECT
They do need an antecedent, are called reflexive pronouns and may be used in colloquial speech.
Hope I helped :)
