Which of the following Is Not a Legal Right
One criticism of natural law theory is that norms cannot be derived from facts.  This objection is variously expressed as the problem of the real target, the naturalistic error or the appeal to nature. G.E. Moore, for example, said that ethical naturalism falls victim to the naturalistic error. [ref. needed] However, some proponents of natural law theory counter that the term “natural” in “natural rights” is opposed to “artificial” rather than referring to nature. John Finnis, for example, asserts that natural law and natural rights derive from obvious principles, not from speculative principles or facts.  It is a perversion of concepts to say that a charter confers rights. It works with the opposite effect – taking away rights. Rights are by nature among all residents; But the Charter, by nullifying these rights by the majority, leaves the right in the hands of a few by exclusion. They. Therefore, are instruments of injustice.
The fact must therefore be that individuals themselves, each in his personal and sovereign right, have entered into a contract among themselves to form a government: and this is the only way in which governments have the right to form, and the only principle on which they have the right to exist. Different philosophers have drawn up different lists of rights that they consider natural. Proponents of natural rights, especially Hesselberg and Rothbard, responded that reason can be used to separate truly axiomatic rights from supposed rights, arguing that any principle that must be refuted is an axiom. Critics have pointed to the lack of agreement among supporters as evidence for the claim that the idea of natural rights is merely a political tool. Meanwhile, in America, Thomas Jefferson “took his division of rights into alienable and inalienable from Hutcheson, which made the distinction popular and important,” and in the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, he condensed this as follows: One of the first Western thinkers to develop the contemporary idea of natural rights was the French theologian Jean Gerson. whose treatise De Vita Spirituali Animae of 1402 is considered one of the first attempts to develop what would be called a modern theory of natural law.  Another particular type of legal claim or group that is increasingly respected by theorists is that of property rights. The discussion about this belongs more to that of the property itself – see the entry on the property.
Only a few brief remarks are made here. For example, suppose X leaves a sum of money to Y according to his will, provided that Y reaches the age of 21. The provision may need to be properly understood under the rules of the legal system that Y is only entitled to the money if he was 21 years old at the time of X`s death. But it may be that the right way to understand it is that Y, even if he has not reached 21, when X dies, acquires a right to money, but he does not have to be paid until the age of 21. A practical difference is that, in the latter case, the right may pass to the titular successor of Y if, after surviving X, Y nevertheless dies before the age of 21. In the latter case, lawyers refer to the right as “acquired”. There can be many complex legal regulations regarding this type of situation, and they vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Reference should be made to textbooks, in particular on testamentary succession, in the jurisdiction.
Different definitions of inalienability include non-dispensation, non-saleability and non-transferability.  This concept was recognized by libertarians as central to the issue of voluntary slavery, which Murray Rothbard rejected as illegitimate and even contradictory.  Stephan Kinsella argues that “the view of rights as alienable is entirely consistent – even implicit – with the libertarian principle of non-aggression. According to this principle, only the use of force is prohibited; This is not defensive, restorative or retaliatory violence.  In Miranda v. In Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court extended Fifth Amendment protection to any situation outside the courtroom that included restrictions on personal liberty. 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Whenever law enforcement detains a suspect, law enforcement must inform the suspect of all his or her rights. These rights, known as Miranda rights, include the right to remain silent, the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation, and the right to have a court-appointed lawyer if the suspect cannot afford it. In the discussion of social contract theory, “inalienable rights” were referred to as those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. These rights are considered as natural rights, independent of positive law. However, some social contract theorists have argued that in its natural state, only the strongest can enjoy their rights. Thus, people form an implicit social contract by ceding their natural rights to authority to protect people from abuse, and from now on living under the legal rights of that authority. Moreover, each person is responsible for his own faith, and he must see for himself that he believes correctly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so few can he believe or not believe for me; And as little He can open or close heaven or hell for me, as little He can cause me to believe or not to believe. Therefore, since belief or disbelief is a matter of everyone`s conscience, and since it is not a reduction of worldly power, he should be content and mind his own business and allow people to believe one or the other, as they can and will, and do not restrict anyone by force.  The question here is whether there are fundamental aspects of rights that are exclusive or at least more important in legal systems, as opposed to morality.