• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Failed Socialist State

the founders did not create democracy ,they created a constitutional republic, america has moved--------> closer to representative democracy with the removal of the check and balance of government...the 17th amendment to the constitution.

you are thick.

DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.....OURS IS REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT thick.

"In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money."

That is just to explain to people that power is divided in the state and this means just that the senate and the house have different attributes. In other words, it means that you have a bicameral congress in which each chamber of congress does something else. You don't have 2 chamber of congress that do the same thing.

THIS ABOVE MEANS POWER IN NOT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE , BUT 3 SETS OF HANDS,............ AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DEMOCRACY!

Yes, it does.

THE ONLY THREAD<------ OF DEMOCRACY CREATED BY THE FOUNDERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT IS ALL.

The electoral college is direct democracy. Sorry. It is. 50%+1 = a candidate gets all the electors to vote for him. If it were representative as in, representative republic, if there were 10 electors for florida and romney got 40% of the vote and Obama 60%, 4 electors would go to Romney, 6 to Obama. But since it is all or nothing, that means that the majority, regardless of how small, trumps the minority, Obama gets all if he has 50%+1 of the votes.

Alexander Fraser Tytler -- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can ((vote)) itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, *(the majority always --->votes for the CANDIDATE promising the most benefits<--- )* with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

yes. democracy cannot survive if people steal form themselves or get stolen. No surprise... because there will be chaos and in times of chaos, dictators usually rise. It is the trend in history.


FEDERALIST 10 JAMES MADISON-- "The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican<----- (than of) ------>democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"

MADISON IS SAYING YOU WILL HAVE LESS FACTIOUS COMBINATIONS .....UNDER REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT......(THAN OF) DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ............CLEARLY........HE DRAWS A CONTRAST AND DEFINES THE TWO AS ----->DIFFERENT.

In other words. Direct democracy is found in the electoral college in the USA. Which explains why it is so undemocratic. Because you, dear ersnt, can win the presidency with less than 23% of the popular vote.

Representative democracy is found in the congress. That is all.

The republic states that there are powers in the state -> executive, legislative and judicial. Among other things.
So you have a representative republic which elects its head of state through an intricate bull**** system called the electoral college which is quite the most undemocratic thing.

If things still aren't clear, there is no point. I suggest we have a long discussion about it, just the 2 of us, in which we analyze and see what the property of terms mean. Or even better, you look them up.
 
You have to love those poor bastards who tow the marxian line. I mean, not only have those that tried failed, they were terrifying even when they were operating. Human rights, poverty, famine, other than just vaporizing themselves, they cannot reasonably have failed any harder. But then, it's not just all of them the wallow in faliure that is so damning, its when those same countries finally wake the **** up and try to improve, they inevitably have to adopt some aspects of western styled government and economics, namely capitalism and government accountability/balance of power. And when they do, they typically improve by leaps and bounds (don't even try with the Russia stuff). You've got part of Asia that embraces western-styled systems, and they thrive and I have to compete with thos educated, savvy bastards every day (and drink a beer with them afterwards as we talk about how we are going to spend all our hard-fought fat loot!). Winners, and losers. Some countries still do OK despite having **** systems, I mean, they have huge populations, huge natural resources, it's not because their system is great, they succeed in spite of their corrupt, bloated, follow-the-leader systems...is anyone realing debating this?

Who really is debating this other than kids who read socialistic propoganda and some extremist minority that tries to get power by using it?
 
In other words. Direct democracy is found in the electoral college in the USA. Which explains why it is so undemocratic. Because you, dear ersnt, can win the presidency with less than 23% of the popular vote.

Representative democracy is found in the congress. That is all.

The republic states that there are powers in the state -> executive, legislative and judicial. Among other things.
So you have a representative republic which elects its head of state through an intricate bull**** system called the electoral college which is quite the most undemocratic thing.

If things still aren't clear, there is no point. I suggest we have a long discussion about it, just the 2 of us, in which we analyze and see what the property of terms mean. Or even better, you look them up.


america was created with 1 direct and two indirect votes, that does not make democracy.

FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – Conformity of the Plan to ..........Republican Principles

please if you will produce a document by the (founders) which states we have representative democracy.

because John Adams says we don't!
 
america was created with 1 direct and two indirect votes, that does not make democracy.

FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – Conformity of the Plan to ..........Republican Principles

please if you will produce a document by the (founders) which states we have representative democracy.

because John Adams says we don't!

John Adams?
 
Awesome. Why does that matter?

very good question sir, and thank you for asking it.

Unalienable / Inalienable

UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.



inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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 to 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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights
 
very good question sir, and thank you for asking it.

Unalienable / Inalienable

UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.



inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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 to 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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights

Your first link says "The two words mean precisely the same thing."
 
Your first link says "The two words mean precisely the same thing."
it discusses how the word was used during the writing of the document.

it was written both ways, but the final one was unalienable, to mean it cannot never be taken, not even by surrendering it.
 
it discusses how the word was used during the writing of the document.

it was written both ways, but the final one was unalienable, to mean it cannot never be taken, not even by surrendering it.

The fact that it was written both ways indicates that, indeed, the words mean precisely the same thing.
 
The fact that it was written both ways indicates that, indeed, the words mean precisely the same thing.

think about this, inalienable, does it mean it can never been removed from you?............yes it can, you can surrender your rights.

unalienable cannot be surrendered, it in no way can be removed from you.
 
John Adams -- Thoughts on government

The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this Representative Assembly. It should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them. That it may be the interest of this Assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or in other words equal interest among the people should have equal interest in it. Great care should be taken to effect this, and to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections. Such regulations, however, may be better made in times of greater tranquility than the present, and they will spring up of themselves naturally, when all the powers of government come to be in the hands of the people's friends. At present it will be safest to proceed in all established modes to which the people have been familiarised by habit.

A representation of the people in one assembly being obtained, a question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly. My reasons for this opinion are as follow.

1. A single Assembly is liable to all the vices, follies and frailties of an individual. Subject to fits of humour, starts of passion, flights of enthusiasm, partialities of prejudice, and consequently productive of hasty results and absurd judgments: And all these errors ought to be corrected and defects supplied by some controuling power.

2. A single Assembly is apt to be avaricious, and in time will not scruple to exempt itself from burthens which it will lay, without compunction, on its constituents.

3. A single Assembly is apt to grow ambitious, and after a time will not hesitate to vote itself perpetual. This was one fault of the long parliament, but more remarkably of Holland, whose Assembly first voted themselves from annual to septennial, then for life, and after a course of years, that all vacancies happening by death, or otherwise, should be filled by themselves, without any application to constituents at all.

4. A Representative Assembly, altho' extremely well qualified, and absolutely necessary as a branch of the legislature, is unfit to exercise the executive power, for want of two essential properties, secrecy and dispatch.

5. A Representative Assembly is still less qualified for the judicial power; because it is too numerous, too slow, and too little skilled in the laws.

6. Because a single Assembly, possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favour.
 
Last edited:
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
 
A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
 
think about this, inalienable, does it mean it can never been removed from you?............yes it can, you can surrender your rights.

unalienable cannot be surrendered, it in no way can be removed from you.

Nonsense. They mean precisely the same thing.

The problem here is that you are using the second link as though it is a good source, but I tell you right now, it's pure ****. Here's how anyone can tell it's ****: it uses different sources to get it's definitions for different words rather than using the same dictionary for each word. Logically, that's invalid.

For example, it uses Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition to define Unalienable, but does NOT use this dictionary to define Inalienable. If it did use the same dictionary, it would see that the terms mean precisely the same thing.

Here's the Definition of Inalienable from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:

This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.

Unalienable from the same source:

The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

Those definitions, while worded slightly differently, have precisely the same meaning. Even the examples in both (public roads, the right to liberty) are identical.

It is extremely important to use good sources, and to not cherry pick sources to achieve your desired argument. The second source you cited in this debate failed to be consistent in it's arguments, and is thus, an invalid source for information.

Link to dictionary: Bouvier Law Dictionary
 
Nonsense. They mean precisely the same thing.

The problem here is that you are using the second link as though it is a good source, but I tell you right now, it's pure ****. Here's how anyone can tell it's ****: it uses different sources to get it's definitions for different words rather than using the same dictionary for each word. Logically, that's invalid.

For example, it uses Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition to define Unalienable, but does NOT use this dictionary to define Inalienable. If it did use the same dictionary, it would see that the terms mean precisely the same thing.

Here's the Definition of Inalienable from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:



Unalienable from the same source:



Those definitions, while worded slightly differently, have precisely the same meaning. Even the examples in both (public roads, the right to liberty) are identical.

It is extremely important to use good sources, and to not cherry pick sources to achieve your desired argument. The second source you cited in this debate failed to be consistent in it's arguments, and is thus, an invalid source for information.

Link to dictionary: Bouvier Law Dictionary



Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the (Consent) of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

in the early days of america before the constitution, many of the Irish sold themselves into slavery in america, they were know as indentured servants.

they sold their rights or were transferred for money.

unalienable rights you cannot sale.
 
Last edited:
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)

The major failure of what you called Socialist states was due to large buildup of Military power and siphoning the money that otherwise would go to build/fix infrastructure to feed the military industrial complex and having power and all the wealth and hands of very few.

We now days call that Republican Plan. Funny how the what you called failed Socialist state and Oligarchy which the GOP is protection with all their heart and soul seem to be merging.


Diving Mullah
 
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)

WTF is this, name one socialist state without using any of the known socialist states on Earth?
 
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)

tanzania,it failed badly at socialism,despite heavy investment from the western world in hopes of them creating a socialism that would benefit the third world and counter soviet style socialism.
 
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the (Consent) of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You just did exactly what I pointed out was invalid logic: use different source for different definitions rather than the same source for both. That's called "cherry picking" and it is invalid logic. Your argument has no merit because of it.

You didn't even use a dictionary for one of the definitions, but instead used a court case as though that's not an utterly asinine way to get a definition for a word.

Seriously, your argument can only have the effect of increasing people's ignorance.
 
You just did exactly what I pointed out was invalid logic: use different source for different definitions rather than the same source for both. That's called "cherry picking" and it is invalid logic. Your argument has no merit because of it.

You didn't even use a dictionary for one of the definitions, but instead used a court case as though that's not an utterly asinine way to get a definition for a word.

Seriously, your argument can only have the effect of increasing people's ignorance.

lets have a try at this again.:


America boldly proclaimed at its birth that natural rights were endowed by man’s very nature – and that individuals are incapable of relinquishing them. Because these rights are endowed in people from Nature’s God, they are inherent in each individual and cannot be abandoned – in other words, such rights are unalienable.

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and (unalienable rights) of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the .......(consent of the person) possessing those rights, such as an indentured servant.

Alienable Inalienable Unalienable
 
What was impure about the USSR?

It was a Communist State rather than a socialist state as all things belonged to the State, whereas there is some private ownership in a socialist state.
 
WTF is this, name one socialist state without using any of the known socialist states on Earth?

Its moreover about the economics of socialism (and besides they were communist anyway)
 
Back
Top Bottom