"Rights," particularly in the context of "inalienable." What do we have that cannot be taken from us? Nothing I can think of, although there are quite a few that can remain until the moment of death...
Someone brought up the rights that all people have, and I just can't think of any that I really KNOW are true. I know something about the ones I believe SHOULD be, and that would seem to be a jumping off point, maybe. I just realized, when trying to find a place to start on the discussion, that I wasn't sure what my working definition was.
Well, the most famous sentence in which those two words are linked says "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights," which kind of assumes that these rights come from God and are untouchable by Man. And, presumably, these rights last until death. In fact, that one of these "rights" IS "pursuit of life."
But even then, there was philosophical argument that it was more of a concept than anything else. That perhaps these rights SHOULD be not violated, but obviously just about all of them COULD be violated, it was just wrong to do so.
What is it with people today? If YOU have YOUR credit card maxed, you don't need your nails done.
You are not me. I need to have my nails done. I have to use my fingertips several hours a day to make the money to pay the credit cards. I know I probably won't convince the IRS it is a business expense, but it certainly affects me.
Besides, I have the cash to do it in my wallet, and that's AFTER posting the payment to the credit card.
. . . .a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something"(Wikipedia, FWIW)
The Declaration assumes they come from the Maker. If one does not presume a Maker, there comes a debate about from where, then, to rights come? My position presumes that the government is not the source but rather, ideally, the guardian.
I don't know if I'm begging the question, or if I've just got "inalienable" and "rights" wedded together; I keep thinking that I still don't know what a "right" is or how it might be inalienable. Whether one is endowed with it by one's creator or by one's government, it seems that one has no "rights" in a vacuum. They must come from outside of one, which really kind of goes against the whole idea of "inalienable" to me. Shouldn't that mean something like "innate" or "inseparable"?
"Innate" or "inherent", I think. I strenuously insist that they do not come from the gov't, as that invites all kinds of abuses. Also, there must be a balance between rights and responsibilities.
A right is a privilege granted by law or custom, whether that is social, divine or natural law.
an alien is a stranger. so inalienable does mean inseparable, something which cannot be estranged from you.
so yes, by definition, I find those two words mutually exclusive. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and all that.
those particular rights postulated by the Declaration as inalienable being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as examples:
this one has always bothered me; the right to life is quite obviously not alienable, because life is taken and given without mutual consent all the time.
the right to physical liberty is equally obviously alienable. the right to mental liberty, the freedom of choice? assuming there is life, this right exists only if you know you have it. You can point a gun at me; I choose whether or not to submit, or die. However, if I have been trained to believe differently, the choice might as well not exist for me. Ergo why nobody at Columbine laid those boys out with a math book upside the back of the head. Vice versa, why the last plane did not fly into the capital.
and lastly the pursuit of happiness. we can be trained out of that too.
our rights are those which we are willing and able to enforce, whether as individuals or as a society. What those rights SHOULD be and how they should be enforced is a whole nother ball of yarn. The Founders were stipulating those they intended to enforce in the new society they were trying to build, and invoking Deity to justify their rebellion. not that I necessarily think this was a bad idea, just rhetoric, not literal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rosecarmine
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 04:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 09:30 pm (UTC)Someone brought up the rights that all people have, and I just can't think of any that I really KNOW are true. I know something about the ones I believe SHOULD be, and that would seem to be a jumping off point, maybe. I just realized, when trying to find a place to start on the discussion, that I wasn't sure what my working definition was.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 09:42 pm (UTC)But even then, there was philosophical argument that it was more of a concept than anything else. That perhaps these rights SHOULD be not violated, but obviously just about all of them COULD be violated, it was just wrong to do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 04:45 pm (UTC)you'd write about the right to wright rites.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 09:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 05:21 pm (UTC)A right is something that the government has the ability to point a gun at someone and make them do for you.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-29 08:03 pm (UTC)You are not me. I need to have my nails done. I have to use my fingertips several hours a day to make the money to pay the credit cards. I know I probably won't convince the IRS it is a business expense, but it certainly affects me.
Besides, I have the cash to do it in my wallet, and that's AFTER posting the payment to the credit card.
Get off me.
Rights?
Date: 2008-04-29 09:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-30 04:32 am (UTC)The Declaration assumes they come from the Maker. If one does not presume a Maker, there comes a debate about from where, then, to rights come? My position presumes that the government is not the source but rather, ideally, the guardian.
But that is a treatise, not an LJ reply.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-30 10:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-30 02:30 pm (UTC)inalienable
Date: 2008-04-30 06:03 pm (UTC)an alien is a stranger. so inalienable does mean inseparable, something which cannot be estranged from you.
so yes, by definition, I find those two words mutually exclusive. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and all that.
those particular rights postulated by the Declaration as inalienable being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as examples:
this one has always bothered me; the right to life is quite obviously not alienable, because life is taken and given without mutual consent all the time.
the right to physical liberty is equally obviously alienable. the right to mental liberty, the freedom of choice? assuming there is life, this right exists only if you know you have it. You can point a gun at me; I choose whether or not to submit, or die. However, if I have been trained to believe differently, the choice might as well not exist for me. Ergo why nobody at Columbine laid those boys out with a math book upside the back of the head. Vice versa, why the last plane did not fly into the capital.
and lastly the pursuit of happiness. we can be trained out of that too.
our rights are those which we are willing and able to enforce, whether as individuals or as a society. What those rights SHOULD be and how they should be enforced is a whole nother ball of yarn. The Founders were stipulating those they intended to enforce in the new society they were trying to build, and invoking Deity to justify their rebellion. not that I necessarily think this was a bad idea, just rhetoric, not literal.
my 2 cents and probably obvious to everybody.