“Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument” - the liberal theory that both Nozick and Rawls missed
https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/
“An inalienable right is a right that may not be ceded or transferred away even with the consent of the holders of the right. Any contract to alienate such a right would be an inherently invalid contract, and, vice-versa, a right such that any contract to alienate it was inherently invalid would thus be an inalienable right.”
It really can’t be stated more how important this concept is.
At least from a western perspective, the defacto state of things prior to this concept taking root was the government (the Monarchy, really) had absolute say in what rights their subjects did and did not have. The idea that each person (a peasant, even!) had rights that were inalienable is an extremely important Enlightenment concept and was considered quite radical at the time.
Edit: grammar
Notably, inalienable rights were not just a catalog of personal views like when people say that people have rights to healthcare. Rather, there is a theory that illustrated why people had these rights based on principles. It wasn’t just an assertion. They showed the institutional fraud inherent in contracts that alienated those rights.
The theory is still very radical even today if you consider the application to modern institutions towards the end of the linked article @neoliberal
