Is their really a fundamental difference between Laws and Rights, where is the line drawn ?
Laws dictate what governments say people have to do, both for the government and for the people.
Rights do not dictate the laws which are required for people to do in order for the government to enforce those rights.
So laws are very detailed, and can be put into practice very reasonably, while rights cannot, because no-one really knows who is supposed to do what to enforce those rights, or even if those demands are fair on those people.
Rights are what the government cannot do to the people, or prevent the people from doing.
To try to enumerate what the government has to do "for" the people is asking to create a list that will keep getting longer and longer and longer and longer and longer. I'll tell you when: When over 50% of the people establish a right to control the purse srtings of govt. In other words, as soon as they vote themselves a key to the "bank".
But that is not actually what the criminal and civil law set out to do.
They dictate what laws the government can impose on the people.Rights don't emanate or occur from magical, non-existent beings in the sky, we give them to each other, mano a mano Since much of the concern over Rights includes permissions, entitlements, etc.i.e.things that can be taken away at a moments notice, why do people think Rights are so important ?The problem is that laws are very specific in dictating how those laws are to be carried out, while rights are not specific at all.Rights do not dictate which arm of the government is to enforce any particular right.As a result, those who become homeless often have no idea what aid they can get from the government, and end up in very difficult situations, like sleeping rough, and only find out about these services from local charities and from word-of-mouth from other homeless people.