• 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!

What are Inalienable Rights?

What is the difference between an inalienable right and an ordinary right?

Inalienable Rights, Right?

Everywhere you go everyone has the same rights- the right to do anything their government allows. Anyone who thinks a right is 'inalienable' knows nothing about history
 
Illegal aliens don't have the same rights as you (sarc).
 
Inalienable means a part of mankind, socially natural (by way of universal agreement). These rights can be violated, but they cannot be taken away or made to otherwise disappear.

Anyone asked, "in order to preserve them for yourself, do you agree to recognize the rights to life, expression and self defense" everyone answers "yes" anywhere in time or place. These agreements are self evident. The are endowed to us by the Creator; that is, they are socially natural.

The driving force behind these universal agreements is species preservation, not merely self preservation. Rights are a social thing.
 
Last edited:
Everywhere you go everyone has the same rights- the right to do anything their government allows. Anyone who thinks a right is 'inalienable' knows nothing about history

That's the point I'm trying to make on Writerbeat.com.
 
Inalienable means a part of mankind, socially natural (by way of universal agreement). These rights can be violated, but they cannot be taken away or made to otherwise disappear.

Anyone asked, "in order to preserve them for yourself, do you agree to recognize the rights to life, expression and self defense" everyone answers "yes" anywhere in time or place. These agreements are self evident. The are endowed to us by the Creator; that is, they are socially natural.

But then we have to define what is "socially natural." Any rights can be subject to interpretation and selective enforcement--like many of the inalienable rights in the US Constitution.
 
That's the point I'm trying to make on Writerbeat.com.

A violation of a right does not constitute its obliteration. Just because someone commits murder does not mean the victim lost their right to life - it was violated not rendered non existent.
 
Inalienable means a part of mankind, socially natural (by way of universal agreement). These rights can be violated, but they cannot be taken away or made to otherwise disappear.

Anyone asked, "in order to preserve them for yourself, do you agree to recognize the rights to life, expression and self defense" everyone answers "yes" anywhere in time or place. These agreements are natural, self evident, inalienable. The are endowed to us by the Creator; that is, they are socially natural.



Right to life?
Really - then why do some states in the USA reserve the right to execute people
Why is abortion legal - even when there is no physical risk to the mother ?

Expression?
Did not the Constitution allow for slavery ?


Right to Self Defense?
Tell that the the survivors of Wounded Knee and Sand Creek
Some countries will lock you up if you fight back when being attacked or raped.


Rights are what a small band of people (otherwise known as the Supreme Court) say you can do....and how...and under what circumstances.
 
But then we have to define what is "socially natural." Any rights can be subject to interpretation and selective enforcement--like many of the inalienable rights in the US Constitution.

Universal agreement defines socially natural.

Do you agree to recognize the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve your own? Of course you do. Everyone does. It's natural. These agreements serve species preservation.

All Western law stems from those three agreements. They are enumerated in the First and Second Amendments.
 
Last edited:
Right to life?
Really - then why do some states in the USA reserve the right to execute people
Why is abortion legal - even when there is no physical risk to the mother ?

Expression?
Did not the Constitution allow for slavery ?


Right to Self Defense?
Tell that the the survivors of Wounded Knee and Sand Creek
Some countries will lock you up if you fight back when being attacked or raped.


Rights are what a small band of people (otherwise known as the Supreme Court) say you can do....and how...and under what circumstances.

Children argue perfect worlds.
 
Universal agreement defines socially natural.

Do you agree to recognize the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve your own? Of course you do. Everyone does. It's natural. These agreements serve species preservation.

All Western law stems from those three agreements. They are enumerated in the First and Second Amendments.

Rights to expression seem to be danger these days.
 
Especially in Europe.

Very true. I can't imagine being arrested for simply complaining on Facebook about muslim immigration and muslim no go zones.
 
Pointless debate.
 
In the original article, which is posted on Writerbeat.com, I postulated that the right of self defense means, for some people, the right to carry a fully armed machine gun just in case a Muslim terrorist attacked. In such a person's mind, that is their inalienable right. Anything else is a violation of that right. Not surprisingly, no one offered their insights into this situation in terms of rights.

But one responder did have some comments about the difference between "inalienable" and "unalienable". If interested, visit the article on Writerbeat.
 
Depends how you say it.

From the articles I have read the last couple of years isn't as simple as someone threatening someone. I may be wrong, but it seems to be considered hate speech in the UK if you object to massive muslim immigration.
 
Inalienable Rights mean rights that can't be taken away, and were given to us by god.
 
From the articles I have read the last couple of years isn't as simple as someone threatening someone. I may be wrong, but it seems to be considered hate speech in the UK if you object to massive muslim immigration.

Again, it depends on how you say it.

If you say it in a way that could be construed as inciting violence to ethnic minorities then yes it is hate speech.


The UKIP has consistently argued against immigration - indeed I think that immigration of Middle Eastern and Eastern European was the main motivating factor behind the "LEAVE" vote in 2016's Brexit.
 
Again, it depends on how you say it.

If you say it in a way that could be construed as inciting violence to ethnic minorities then yes it is hate speech.


The UKIP has consistently argued against immigration - indeed I think that immigration of Middle Eastern and Eastern European was the main motivating factor behind the "LEAVE" vote in 2016's Brexit.

Hate Speech ain't all it is cracked up to be these days.
 
What is the difference between an inalienable right and an ordinary right?

Inalienable Rights, Right?

TDGonDP:

The notion of individual rights was a concept born out of the the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment and the rise of humanism which began furtively in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe but gained real political traction in the mid to late 18th Century. The source of these "natural rights" was a difficult case to make as they were supposed to reside in each human being naturally but some folks were considered to be more human and deserving of rights than others. Thus kings claimed divine rights to rule absolutely over their subjects, derived directly from God while subjects claimed natural rights of freedom in opposition to the divinely endowed rights of their absolute kings and their burdensome aristocracies. But how to match the legitimacy of divinely endowed rights? The answer was if you can't beat them, then join them. Thus the humanists of the Age of Reason and the desists of the Enlightenment turned to God as the source of their rights and claimed divine provenance for their demands to the rights they craved and thus pinned their justification to poor, overworked God's collar.

The champions of natural rights then claimed that these natural rights were universal, but that universality wasn't as all-encompassing as it is assumed to be today. These rights largely excluded non-European indigenous peoples who were either exterminated or who were forcefully compelled to struggle under the yolk of imperialism in order to make empires profitable. These natural rights did not extend to slaves or indentured workers who remained in perpetual or temporary bondage to their masters. These universal rights did not apply to those branded by society as criminals or undesirables such as debtors or freehold farmers during the Enclosure movements which periodically gripped Europe. These universal natural rights did not apply to women or children who were excluded from some or all of these rights because they were deemed to be unable to defend themselves and were thus the chattel (property) of men (men with property that is). So the universality was as much a sham as the claims by ardent humanists that God was the source of these natural and universal rights.

The notion that these natural rights were unalienable/inalienable is also born out of the divine provenance claimed by the champions of natural rights like Rousseau, Locke, Mills, Paine and many others. If these rights were bestowed upon human men of property by "God himself", then no man or corporation of men such as a state could remove them without going against God's will. To go against God's will was at best taboo and at worst highly illegal and would therefore discredit any corporation or state from exercising such power over men of means, thus allowing propertied men to legitimately rise in arms against such tyranny and remove such corporations and states from power in order to stop such abuses against God's will.

So what is the difference between an inalienable right and a regular right? God's will. This divine will as claimed by those with sufficient means to arm themselves and revolt/rebel against any corporation which attempts to remove such rights from men of means was a convenient justification which could challenge the hierarchy of aristocracy and the divine right of kings. But it was really window-dressing for one corporation of armed men (rebels/revolutionaries) to challenge another corporation of armed men (the state) to a bloody contest of wills in order to determine who won the power to exert coercive force and thus control over other weaker members of their society. Lip-stick on pigs who aspired to be George Orwell's Napoleon in the novel Animal Farm by replacing absolute monarchy with absolute oligarchy or plutocracy. Dressing up armed rebellion to make it look more legit, public relations really.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom