Let’s disregard the right of assembly on an island for a minute, the desert island test is stupid exactly because of the reason Noumenon spells out: it abstracts anything having to do with human-on-human interaction by the simple expedient of not having anyone else present.

Rights get interesting precisely when they impinge on others, so all interesting scenarios are out by definition.

Example: the desert island test allows for privacy or healthcare – you have the right to complete privacy (you are alone, so it nobody could observe you) and the absolute best healthcare that desert island has to offer (ok, not much due to absence of others .

The only thing it’s useful (due to lack of people) is that it clearly identifies any ‘rights’ that compel others to do things. But that’s just a fraction of what constitutes rights, not a complete definition. And before someone chimes up about how that is exactly the point – consider how in real life, your right to a fair trial compels all sort of action in others.

I don’t think you understand the concept of the ‘desert island test’ if you think it is stupid. The fact of the matter is you can have your ‘right to assembly’ on a desert island. The right to assembly is defined as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is nothing in there that says you have the right to create an assembly of 2 or more people, just that congress can not pass a law prohibiting your right to assemble.

To understand how this applies in real life, if you say there is a ‘right to healthcare’ for example, you are stating that if you are sick or injured you have the right to be treated. You do not have this right if you are alone on a desert island because it requires someone to provide the care for you. The idea behind the desert island test is if it requires someone to do something for you it’s not an actual ‘right’ it is the confiscation of one persons labor/money and redistribution to another person.

There are no amendments to the constitution that require one person or group of persons to give/do something for another person. Not all of them may be particularly useful to you on a desert island and they may not be the easiest to utilize but they are all as applicable on a desert island as they are in any of the 50 states of the union.

Humans also aren’t spiders, or rhinoceroses, to pick two examples of truly solitary creatures that you could expect to lead a natural existence on a desert island. They are more similar to ants, inherently social creatures.

But they are illegal nonetheless. That’s why I’m for stricter border control and penalties for businesses who employ these people or support those who do so(so they can’t hide behind anybody).

The best thing to do is to return them to the nation and make sure they never return, even if by deadly force.

Well, there goes freedom of assembly.

The desert island test is stupid — it’s like determining the natural rights for an ant by what he would be entitled to with no anthill. Humans are inherently social and don’t exist alone on desert islands any more than singleton ants do. An ant bill of rights that calls for all ants to be fed and protected isn’t unnatural just because drones can’t feed themselves and workers can’t fight.

I would agree that many of the jobs open to me when I was in high school are gone. As for teens not knowing how to work, two words, helicopter parents.

1. It was designed so it could be amended (e.g. 16th Amendment).

2. It allows for certain rights to disappear in times of “war and certain other emergencies”. (e.g. habeas corpus as per Article 1, Section 9).