Any evidence for metaphysical rights?
But that's not the point; for all we know it might be true that there is no (metaphysical) thing such as human rights at all.
The point of the appeal to the "creator" or the the fact that men are "born" with certain rights is not so much to establish a metaphysical claim, but to put the government on notice that, whatever the source of human rights is (if any), it is
not the government. They could have appealed, as the originator of human rights, instead of the creator, to human nature, or mother earth, or Yog-Shoggoth, for all the difference it makes in that respect.
I cannot prove to you that, metaphysically speaking, anybody really
has a right to anything, even to life itself. But that hardly means that anyobdy--including the government--has the right to claim that, since it is impossible for you to prove you have a metaphysical right to life, then such a right is really given (as opposed to protected, or cared for)
by the government, any more than I can claim that in reality, since you cannot prove you have a right to life, you really only live because I, Skeptic, allow you to. That is simply a non-sequitor.
You might ask, "Well, what difference does it make if the government gives you the right to life or not, when it is the one which protects it in practice?". But ask yourself if you are willing to have the bank formally
own the money in your savings account, as long as it promises to let you use it, and you'll see the difference between "giving" and "protecting".
First, I would say that even if the banks were 100% honest and really did let you use the money they now "own" in exactly the same way you do now, when you own it, there are important metaphysical and psychological differences between thinking yourself the owner of your money and thinking yourself the charge of the banks, given money from them as a child would get pocket money; similarly there is a deep difference between being, metaphysically, the government's masters, when it protects rights we have, or the government's children, to be taken care after by being given certain rights. Metaphysics matters: the former position is worthy of men, the latter only of children.
But even without this, the difference in practice is that, among other things, it limits the power of the government. If the government is the
giver of the rights,
it has the power to take them away as well. There is no basis then for opposing a tyrannical government, at least as long as it treats you comfortably: for since you don't actually
have any rights to begin with, you cannot claim you were wronged.
If freedom of speech, right to propety, etc. are given by the government, then they are at mot
priviledges, not rights; one might be disappointed at losing them, as one might be disappointed of having one's welfare payments stopped, but one had no real grounds for a grievance. If, on the other hand, the rights our yours to begin with, only given to the govenrment to protect--which is precisely what the declaration of independence says--then if the government stops protecting them, then you have the
right to fight against it. It
may not do as it pleases with them.
