> Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated. Perhaps meaningful in the abstract, but a meaningless distinction in practice. > I

> Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated. Perhaps meaningful in the abstract, but a meaningless distinction in practice. > It's pretty obvious that they exist, otherwise nobody would really care about murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc. That does not follow. There are in fact people who don't care about those things; that some people do does not mean inalienable rights somehow exist as anything more than social norms. > So the burden of proof is on those that want to limit or deny inalienable rights. No, the burden of proof of any claim of existence is always on the one claiming something does exist; proving something doesn't exist is not logically possible as there's always somewhere you can't look (the universe is big) and thus an invalid statement not subject to the burden of proof because it's wrong to claim at all.