vinney on Nostr: To me, this sounds like my definition of "norms" - which are voluntarily agreed upon ...

To me, this sounds like my definition of "norms" - which are voluntarily agreed upon by the various parties in an effort to improve social cohesion and delineate what constitutes a "defector".

Since, in your conception, the "right" MAY actually be violated, that also means it is perpetually "granted" by those who actively don't violate it. If its up to me and my actions to determine whether your right is respected or violated, is it really "yours"...? It seems to exist at my discretion.
To me, that's an agreement between people, not anything like an objectively existent or natural property of the universe.

I also don't see what natural property of the world enforces that the breaker of a right necessarily becomes "dependent" on the right-holder. It again seems like social norms and laws provide the enforcement there. (If I kill you and run away - or just steal your stuff - the natural world, physics, supernatural ethics, etc. doesn't provide any enforcement mechanism. Other people, who adhere to the same framework of norms do).
So then, why is this set of socially-constructed, voluntarily agreed-upon norms of behavior "higher" than "law"? They look almost identical to me.