Responsibilities Without Rights

When Hillary Clinton alluded recently to a "basic bargain" for Americans who "work hard and play by the rules", she echoed Barack Obama's 2013 State of Union Address in which he said "It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country -- the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead." I am not sure where this basic bargain was discovered. It isn't in the United States Constitution. The rights enumerated therein are not conditioned on one's work ethic or even on one's adherence to responsibilities. In fact, even eccentrics have rights in America. The Constitution circumscribes the government--and not the rights of individuals. To accept the idea of the "basic bargain" is to accept the idea that our rights are conditional--that they are conditioned upon our exertions and/or our obedience (ie. ideological obedience). To assess the quantity of one's work--and thus to determine if "hard work" has been done--is to assess the quality and directionality of one's work: who dictates whether one's work is done, must determine what one's work is and whether it is done satisfactorily. And who dictates whether one has met his responsibilities, must delineate the responsibilities of those he superintends. In effect, he who has responsibilities without rights is as pliant as a puppet, but does not need actuation. Under the "basic bargain", will the hard work, contained in this blog, qualify this author for rights in America (ie. the right to get ahead)?