are there such things as inalienable rights?

Question

Arguing the case for and against the proposition that there are no such thngs as alienable rights

Answer 1

The phrase is used in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Benjamin Franklin said that any people who are willing to sacrifice a measure of their liberties for security will have neither liberty nor security.

Your question goes to the dynamic of power versus force. There is great power in the concept of inalienable rights. These rights, however, may be overcome by the force of others, if it is not opposed. As Thomas Jefferson noted, we have a right -- if not a duty -- to oppose the deprivation of God-given rights. This is the argument for the dignity of man and for the preservation of human rights everywhere.

These rights are absolute, but we can lose them or give them up through carelessness and sloth and apathy. We need to be ever-vigilant against others attempts to deprive us of these rights, as is happening in many countries today.

Answer 2

The first thing you have to do is understand what "inalienable" means.

It doesn't mean that it is impossible to violate them. It means that they exist, even if they are violated, even if they are not listed on a document somewhere, even if the government denies their existence.

In my view, those rights which were enumerated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Indepence as "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means that each one of us on this planet own ourselves, and have the right to be left alone and free from the initiation of force. If we have that right, so does everyone else, so when we attack someone, they have the right to fight back, with deadly force if need be. If we have the right to use deadly force, then we obviously have the right to own the means to use it.

If there are no inalienable rights in the individual, then there are no rights at all. My claim on the contents of your wallet is equal to yours, my claim to the fruits of your labor is equal to yours, and my desire for what you do with your life today is equal to yours; it all comes down to force, and the ability to use force is all that we can give the government. Without inalienable individual rights, then it is equally moral to enslave people as it is to feed them.

It really isn't a question of whether or not the rights are self-protecting. They are not. It is a question of whether or not you believe they exist, and if you don't, you believe in slavery because there is nothing upon which to build a moral argument against it. You have to recognize that if you do accept that there being no rights in the individual applies to yourself, so while you may like the idea of being able to enslave others, that system applies to yourself, making you a potential slave of others.

The only way to defend the idea that there are no inalienable rights is to redefine the term, because even if there are inalienable rights, it is possible to violate them by force. This is a semantical error, because the proper term for a right that cannot be violated by force would be an "inviolable right".

I certainly would concede that there are no "inviolable rights".

Answer 3

In the UK there used to be a proud tradition of freedom of speech. The Human Rights legislation has largely removed that freedom, as so many of the things which a person might say allegedly give offence to ethnic minorities. The suppression of Christmas celebrations is, in fact, a phenomenon recognised in many other countries too.

The right to life has been threatened by legislation permitting abortion. It is a question of terminology. Refer to the unborn child as a "pregnancy" and we are no longer, apparently, dicussing a human being.

What should be an inalienable right to work for one's living is largely dependent on the willingness of society to permit this (the various discriminations which are still rife despite legislation to curb their effects).

One would like to feel that human dignity was an inalienble right, but the way in which passengers are treated in US airports would persuade one otherwise.

Answer 4

"Alienable" means that the possessor has the right to sell it, give it up or transfer it to others. It can be argued that if a person has a right he must have the right to dispose of it whenever & for whatever reason he wishes. Therefore a "right" must be alienable or it is not truly a right, but only some sort of limited license.

Answer 5

I think that the Patriot Act has proven that there is no such thing. Whatever has been written into the constitution has proven to be unprotected...

Answer 6

If you are in alien you have no rights. Only citizens have rights.

Answer 7

Only if you exercise the second ammendment to it's fullest extent ;)