Most of the rights after the first 10 are 100% alienable in a naturalist sense. A man in the jungle will speak freely and associate voluntarily… A man in the jungle has a right to not be lorded over for more than 8 years by one individual (a la 25A, for instance)…? The verbiage becomes meaningless.
You literally can. Sign a user agreement saying “I will not say X”. Boom, your ability is gone.
The argument of “well you can say X, you’ll just face the consequence of being banned” is ridiculous, because you might as well say that murder is an inalienable right because you can’t give away your ability to murder people. Just because you get arrested for murder doesn’t mean you can’t do it, therefore you have a natural right to murder!
Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.
Our mortality literally does mean we don’t have inalienable rights - rights are things we fight to have and maintain, not something we’re just born with by virtue of being alive. All rights can be taken away if they aren’t protected, they aren’t sacred or magic or God-given.
The Founders considered these rights inalienable because they were superstitious and believed in immortal souls. In their minds, death didn’t really rob people of their rights because their spirit would always be free.
Without 1700s superstition to justify the concept it doesn’t really work.
Okay, this is getting good now :] I actually agree with their premise, that the dead are free. I mean, unless theres a whole bureaucracy to the underworld, lol. I think we will both agree that the dead are not pestered by corporeal issues like war and taxes, and so on. That there is no boot that can be applied to them. Souns nice :p
I think our rub is predominantly ‘Positive vs. Negative rights.’ Positive rights require Uncle Sam to hold them together, whereas negative liberty is innate, and our Constitution forbids government from trying to stop it. I think Negative rights are more real than Positive rights (like voting).
The US Bill of Rights only includes the first 10 amendments, so the 25A isn’t included. It also doesn’t itself contain “unalienable”, that being only in the Declaration of Independence, and in the discussions around the proposal of the amendments.
While the whole unalienable rights of all people that we’re just stating as one country rather seems like Enlightenment ridiculousness and extremely pretentious, and I’ve certainly seen interpretations that are extremely hegemonic, such as arguing that the US Bill of Rights applies to all countries, it doesn’t include later amendments.
I agree with pretentiousness-- They were trying really hard. By and large I like that, the big ideals. The unavoidable glaring problem is the paradox of freedom AND governance. Like, even lawless pirates begged the question; ‘What do we do with a drunken sailor?’. Its not trivial.
Most of the rights after the first 10 are 100% alienable in a naturalist sense. A man in the jungle will speak freely and associate voluntarily… A man in the jungle has a right to not be lorded over for more than 8 years by one individual (a la 25A, for instance)…? The verbiage becomes meaningless.
Uh if a jungle cat wants you to shut the fuck up then your inalienable right to free speech won’t protect you lol
Eh, I could try my primal scream :] Even empty-handed, I’d fight. And you would too!
Sure! But if you have to fight for a right it’s not really inalienable, is it?
If you have to fight to remove a right, it’s not really alienable, is it?
Yes? That’s literally what alienable means - removable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alienable#:~:text=Alienable means transferable.,restriction on it states otherwise.
You cannot give away your ability to create free speech.
You literally can. Sign a user agreement saying “I will not say X”. Boom, your ability is gone.
The argument of “well you can say X, you’ll just face the consequence of being banned” is ridiculous, because you might as well say that murder is an inalienable right because you can’t give away your ability to murder people. Just because you get arrested for murder doesn’t mean you can’t do it, therefore you have a natural right to murder!
The whole concept is gibberish.
But fighting IS the right ;] Even struggling with in handcuffs is envoking your animal nature.
And if they shoot you for resisting arrest you won’t be struggling much after that.
Nothing is inalienable.
Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.
Our mortality literally does mean we don’t have inalienable rights - rights are things we fight to have and maintain, not something we’re just born with by virtue of being alive. All rights can be taken away if they aren’t protected, they aren’t sacred or magic or God-given.
The Founders considered these rights inalienable because they were superstitious and believed in immortal souls. In their minds, death didn’t really rob people of their rights because their spirit would always be free.
Without 1700s superstition to justify the concept it doesn’t really work.
Okay, this is getting good now :] I actually agree with their premise, that the dead are free. I mean, unless theres a whole bureaucracy to the underworld, lol. I think we will both agree that the dead are not pestered by corporeal issues like war and taxes, and so on. That there is no boot that can be applied to them. Souns nice :p
I think our rub is predominantly ‘Positive vs. Negative rights.’ Positive rights require Uncle Sam to hold them together, whereas negative liberty is innate, and our Constitution forbids government from trying to stop it. I think Negative rights are more real than Positive rights (like voting).
The US Bill of Rights only includes the first 10 amendments, so the 25A isn’t included. It also doesn’t itself contain “unalienable”, that being only in the Declaration of Independence, and in the discussions around the proposal of the amendments.
While the whole unalienable rights of all people that we’re just stating as one country rather seems like Enlightenment ridiculousness and extremely pretentious, and I’ve certainly seen interpretations that are extremely hegemonic, such as arguing that the US Bill of Rights applies to all countries, it doesn’t include later amendments.
A man of civics :] Very cool.
I agree with pretentiousness-- They were trying really hard. By and large I like that, the big ideals. The unavoidable glaring problem is the paradox of freedom AND governance. Like, even lawless pirates begged the question; ‘What do we do with a drunken sailor?’. Its not trivial.