One consequence of the two meanings of the term "right" is that there is no inherent contradiction in asserting: "A person has the right to perform action X, but that action is morally wrong." The first part of the statement pertains to the freedom that others ought to grant a person, whereas the latter part (where "wrong" serves as an antonym to the adjective "right") pertains to the moral quality of that person's own actions.

Since rights are objective ethical principles, they remain true regardless of whether or not people or governments choose to recognize them. Although they may be ignored or "violated," they cannot be taken away, any more than the principle of gravity can be "taken away." If one chooses to ignore the principle of gravity, one will nevertheless fall, because the principle remains true. Similarly, if a government chooses to violate the rights of an individual, the same negative praxeological consequences will ensue, regardless of whether or not those rights are expressly acknowledged in that government's statutory codes or edicts. As Jefferson said, rights are "unalienable." Nor can rights be "given" to anyone; the state, for example, cannot manufacture new objective moral principles any more than it can enact new laws of physics.