Are there really unalienable rights?

[Ana the Ist]

Rights are much like ethical principles. They are discovered by understanding human nature and needs. It's not about what people want, but rather but rather about the legal conditions they need to flourish in society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I dunno Mark, I'd say that "flourishing" and the legal values that create conditions in which to flourish can change.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I dunno Mark, I'd say that "flourishing" and the legal values that create conditions in which to flourish can change.

Patterns of flourishing may vary from individual to individual, or even from time and place, but any good laws are broad enough to encompass a wide range of patterns of flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

Before the conversation goes further, we need to understand the difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable".

• Yes, we have unalienable rights. Something is unalienable if it is inherent in a being, such as eye color. It cannot be taken away from you nor can you give it up.
• We also have inalienable rights. Something is inalienable if it is part of a being, and cannot legally be taken away from you ... but can be voluntarily given up or waived by personal consent, such as your eyes.

The final draft and official Declaration of Independence states that the People have unalienable rights. Ever wonder why the "government" chose to misrepresent the Declaration by carving "inalienable rights" into the Jefferson memorial?

 

[David Colin Gould]

Before the conversation goes further, we need to understand the difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable".

• Yes, we have unalienable rights. Something is unalienable if it is inherent in a being, such as eye color. It cannot be taken away from you nor can you give it up.
• We also have inalienable rights. Something is inalienable if it is part of a being, and cannot legally be taken away from you ... but can be voluntarily given up or waived by personal consent, such as your eyes.

The final draft and official Declaration of Independence states that the People have unalienable rights. Ever wonder why the "government" chose to misrepresent the Declaration by carving "inalienable rights" into the Jefferson memorial?

"English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form."

http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/

I don't think there's a conspiracy at work, to be honest.

 

[AtWhatCost]

Yes, it can be determined what this means for everyone. However, this is done in the abstract, not by telling each and every individual how they should judge their individual situations. That job is left to individuals.

Since rational activity is free, not compelled, there is no need for a government to force people into its own specific views of what they should be doing. Government is only there to enforce laws that secure rights that preserve the freedom to be rationally self-directed. That freedom may be called "individual liberty".

Examples are laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, kidnapping...


eudaimonia,

Mark

Examples to the contrary in the US include suing states to get SSM passed as the law of the land, suing Christians who won't perform those marriages, putting a woman in prison for refusing to sign the papers to accept a SSM, restricting only pro-life protesters away from abortion clinics (any other protesters are fine picketing outside the businesses they are against), forcing states to accept abortion on demand, and the government spending the money we give them to support Planned Parenthood as they abort babies to sell their organs.

So much for "individual liberty."

 

[ananda]

"English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form."

http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/

I don't think there's a conspiracy at work, to be honest.

I disagree.

There was certainly a difference between the two words in the late 1700s. This is evidenced by the fact that Jefferson changed the wording from "inalienable" (in his first drafts of the Declaration) to the word "unalienable" (in the final copy). If there was no difference, then there would be no reason for Jefferson to change the word.

Yes, language evolves and English is not an exception; so, in the realm of law, it is generally understood that it is not proper to interpret the meaning of a word in a law using definitions other than the meaning used during the time the law was drafted. So, instead of seeing how the words may or may not be defined "now", look up old copies of dictionaries like Johnson's of 1755 or even as late as Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, and see that there is clearly a difference between the two words.

Finally, why would your "government" inscribe "inalienable" on something as historically important as the Jefferson memorial? Something like that would surely have been checked and verified multiple times for the proper reading. It is clear to me that there was clearly a conscious decision by someone(s) to choose the word "inalienable" instead of the actual reading of "unalienable" as found in the final version of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There was certainly a difference between the two words in the late 1700s. This is evidenced by the fact that Jefferson changed the wording from "inalienable" (in his first drafts of the Declaration) to the word "unalienable" (in the final copy). If there was no difference, then there would be no reason for Jefferson to change the word.

I can imagine reasons. It may simply have sounded better.

And why would he have been confused enough to use the wrong word to his intent in the first place? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'd like to see some document that explains the change.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

I can imagine reasons. It may simply have sounded better.

And why would he have been confused enough to use the wrong word to his intent in the first place? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'd like to see some document that explains the change.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Even an accomplished jurist like Jefferson cannot be expected to know the definition of every word. I would be surprised if he changed the word for any reason besides accuracy and precision; perhaps he received advice from his peers regarding the word and consciously changed it to "unalienable".

To think that a word, found in something as important as a founding document and organic law of a federal government, was changed to make it "sound better" is far fetched, considering that dictionaries of his day differentiated between the two words. Surely Jefferson understood the differences and made a conscious decision to choose one over the other - he wasn't writing a comment on f-book.

 

[Foxhole87]

Ananda, what's your position on the "sovereign citizen" movement?
Your arguments seem similar to ones they use.

 

[ananda]

Ananda, what's your position on the "sovereign citizen" movement?
Your arguments seem similar to ones they use.

There are no such things as sovereign citizens. A sovereign cannot be a citizen (a subject). They are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Us and Texas are the main death penalty states, and also the most conservative in Christian virtue.
Ironically.

I never really felt that vibe here. Of course I live in Virginia Beach.

 

[Belk]

We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?

What do we mean by "Rights"? Is, for example, the fact that we will die at some point a right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do we mean by "Rights"? Is, for example, the fact that we will die at some point a right?

Rights pertain to choices that are seen as properly your own. That you will die at some point is not a right since that is not your choice, but it is arguably your right to eat unhealthy food even though this might shave a few years off of your life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Belk]

Rights pertain to choices that are seen as properly your own. That you will die at some point is not a right since that is not your choice, but it is arguably your right to eat unhealthy food even though this might shave a few years off of your life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Fair enough. Then my next question would be do we retain these rights if they are regulated against? Are rights still intact even if they are being violated and no one is defending them?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Are there really unalienable rights

There's supposed to be. They are human rights. But there are those who try to find ways to get over them, which contradicts the whole thing altogether. Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example.

 

[Hikarifuru]

We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?

no. Humans made it all up and so many other humans liked it and agreed they all forgot that they made it up

 

[Albion]

We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?

The three rights most often referred to are Life, Liberty, and Property. The one most likely to pass muster is the first of these, and it does appear that a good case can be made for it from Scripture.

The other two are considered unalienable because they are intimate to the first one. There is no possibility of really enjoying--which is to say, having--the right to life without the minimum of the ability to experience it. That would be freedom and possessing the fruits of one's honest labor.

 

[Belk]

The three rights most often referred to are Life, Liberty, and Property. The one most likely to pass muster is the first of these, and it does appear that a good case can be made for it from Scripture.

The other two are considered unalienable because they are intimate to the first one. There is no possibility of really enjoying--which is to say, having--the right to life without the minimum of the ability to experience it. That would be freedom and possessing the fruits of one's honest labor.

Can you explain you perspective on the right to life? I have never understood how anyone could claim that as a right since

a) Suicide is illegal most places .
and
b) One of two things we are certain of is we are going to die.

If we have no choice to when we die and have no ability to ensure we continue to live when we want how can it be a right?

 

[Albion]

Can you explain you perspective on the right to life? I have never understood how anyone could claim that as a right since

a) Suicide is illegal most places .
and
b) One of two things we are certain of is we are going to die.

If we have no choice to when we die and have no ability to ensure we continue to live when we want how can it be a right?

To live one's life until the body wears out is a natural right or, IOW, an "unalienable" right. The fact that a person is allowed, by the laws of the USA, to kill himself doesn't mean that it isn't an unalienable right, not any more than you have a legal right to practice your religion freely but are not required by the secular laws to have a religion. Same with free speech or the right to assemble.

 

[Belk]

To live one's life until the body wears out is a natural right or, IOW, an "unalienable" right. The fact that a person is allowed, by the laws of the USA, to kill himself doesn't mean that it isn't an unalienable right, not any more than you have a legal right to practice your religion freely but are not required by the secular laws to have a religion. Same with free speech or the right to assemble.

I am now even more confused I'm afraid. So you are saying we have this right that can not be taken away even though someone might violate it by killing us? Or even accidents might supersede this right? I guess that is the part I am having trouble with.