5 ms·

Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions

Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions such as death penalty, imprisonment, compulsory military draft, and all kinds of less severe restrictions for criminals and suspects.

smitty1e 5y ago
Disagree. > Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights There is a system of laws enacted by representatives of the people and proven out in courts, for example Eminent Domain. To your point, that "nation of laws" concept is tending toward more of a theoretical than practical thing.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Then they're alienable by law, not inalienable.
dredmorbius 5y ago
That's a misunderstanding of "inalienable" or "unalienable". An alienable right is one which can be assigned to another. Your physical, real (land), and usefruct rights (as with intellectual property rights) can be alienated in the sense that you can be deprived of them and then they can be assigned to another entity. Inalienable rights can be denied to you, but cannot be made alien in the sense that another receives their benefits. Your own life, your own happiness, your own liberty, among other privileges you may enjoy, can be deprived of you. But nobody else can receive their benefits. The notion of inalienable rights is not absolutely fixed. In 1800, you would have had an inalienable right to the function of your own heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. With organ transplants, these are now alienable rights, as those organs (and others) can be removed and given to others, through advances in medical technology.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Note that your usefruct rights and your property rights can be alienated, but your right to property, as a separate concept, cannot. That is, the benefits or possession of property can be transferred to another. The ability to benefit or possess cannot. Those last can be denied, and the objects of them transferred, but the right to enjoy, much as happiness or enjoyment itself, is inalienable.

smitty1e 5y ago

Disagree. > Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights There is a system of laws enacted by representatives of the people and proven out in courts, for example Eminent Domain. To your point, that "nation of laws" concept is tending toward more of a theoretical than practical thing.

exporectomy 5y ago
Then they're alienable by law, not inalienable.

dredmorbius 5y ago

That's a misunderstanding of "inalienable" or "unalienable". An alienable right is one which can be assigned to another. Your physical, real (land), and usefruct rights (as with intellectual property rights) can be alienated in the sense that you can be deprived of them and then they can be assigned to another entity. Inalienable rights can be denied to you, but cannot be made alien in the sense that another receives their benefits. Your own life, your own happiness, your own liberty, among other privileges you may enjoy, can be deprived of you. But nobody else can receive their benefits. The notion of inalienable rights is not absolutely fixed. In 1800, you would have had an inalienable right to the function of your own heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. With organ transplants, these are now alienable rights, as those organs (and others) can be removed and given to others, through advances in medical technology.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Note that your usefruct rights and your property rights can be alienated, but your right to property, as a separate concept, cannot. That is, the benefits or possession of property can be transferred to another. The ability to benefit or possess cannot. Those last can be denied, and the objects of them transferred, but the right to enjoy, much as happiness or enjoyment itself, is inalienable.