Is it true that a slave has no rights but a submissive does?

"A slave has no rights but a submissive does." What exactly does that mean? 

To me the statement means nothing. Every human being has “Inalienable Rights”. Rights that are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. And, honestly, there is no person in the free states that doesn't know this. So when a person tells me that their slave has no rights, I take this as the highest form of role play and is only circumstantially true.

There is this old joke that sums it up. Guy says to his friend, "Your dog looks like he is in pain... what’s wrong with him?" The friend says, "He's lying on a nail." The guy says, "Don't you want to help him?" To which the friend responds, "When the pain gets bad enough he will move." The truth of the matter is there is no slave that I have ever met that didn't know in their heart of hearts that they couldn't leave their Master if they wanted to. So I would challenge the statement that a slave has no rights. If the slave has the right to leave then the statement is null and void, so at best a slave is an indentured servant. (Wink)

Lastly, a slave is not a slave because she(he) wants to be told what to do, that is a submissive. A slave isn't a slave because she(he) wants to be hurt, that is a masochist. A slave is a slave because her(his) only desire is to be what her(his) Master needs, when (S)He needs it.

A slave’s only wish is to give his or herself to their Master. But more than anything a slave doesn't need the fantasy of enslavement because the reality of her(his) willing commitment to her(his) Master is stronger than any shackle and more valuable than money.
So, is it true that a slave has no rights but a submissive does? No, they both have the same rights.