# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  A question on unalienable rights

## LookingForward

Are the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to fair trials and the right to privacy unalienable? How about the freedom to own a gun?

Thanks!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Kludge

Rights can only be unalienable in ideal circumstances without government. However, with Justice (the only responsibility I think the majority here would believe gov't should be tasked with), Liberty must be restricted and so it becomes obvious that we must do away with rights for the Common Good. They are nothing more than privileges with certain legal protections granted to us by the Bill of Rights and other legislation. It is reasonable to have government protect its citizens from free people who wish to do us harm.

(IOW, if Jimmy shoots Johnny without just cause, Jimmy should be disabled from doing so again and also pay reparations to those he has harmed)

----------


## Old Ducker

> Are the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to fair trials and the right to privacy unalienable? How about the freedom to own a gun?
> 
> Thanks!


No.  Inalienable means that they can neither be taken away nor can you give them away.  You have an inalienable right to take a dump, for example.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Hi, welcome to the forum, and oh by the way?  Ignore Kludge.

----------


## Kludge

> Hi, welcome to the forum, and oh by the way?  Ignore Kludge.


You disagree that rights aren't unalienable if they can be taken away? (oh, or is that just general advice?  )

----------


## Matt Collins

> However, with Justice (the only responsibility I think the majority here would believe gov't should be tasked with),


Justice, enforcement of contracts, and securing individual liberties.





> Liberty must be restricted and so it becomes obvious that we must do away with rights for the Common Good. They are nothing more than privileges with certain legal protections granted to us by the Bill of Rights and other legislation. It is reasonable to have government protect its citizens from free people who wish to do us harm.


Exactly. Rights can only belong to individuals. Groups and communities do not possesses rights. Government holds power, not rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights. Rights come from our humanity (and as many believe, from God - although one's belief in higher power is not necessary to acknowledge the existence of rights). Rights and privileges are opposites. The only human rights are individual rights.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No.  Inalienable means that they can neither be taken away nor can you give them away.  You have an inalienable right to take a dump, for example.


Rights can be taken away with, and only with, due process, but should only be taken away for infringing on the rights of others.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Are the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to fair trials and the right to privacy unalienable? How about the freedom to own a gun?
> 
> Thanks!


think of it as un-a-lien-able... instead of un-alien-able...

----------


## LookingForward

Thanks all!

----------


## osan

> Are the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to fair trials and the right to privacy unalienable? How about the freedom to own a gun?
> 
> Thanks!


Is this a serious question?  The answer should be obvious.  Why the answer is what it is may not be quite as obvious.  Try reading the essay at the link below in my signature.  It is short and should clear up any misunderstanding.

----------


## osan

> Rights can only be unalienable in ideal circumstances without government.


This is unequivocally incorrect.  "Inalienable" refers to the fact that they are part and parcel of the fabric of our being as living persons.  As such, they cannot be excised from us by any means whatsoever.  They may, however, be violated in any of a considerable number of ways such as denial, abridgment, and disparagement, to name only three.  This is a crucial point that many people do not grasp well.




> However, with Justice (the only responsibility I think the majority here would believe gov't should be tasked with), Liberty must be restricted


Restricted?  How?




> and so it becomes obvious that we must do away with rights for the Common Good.


Doing away with rights?  You will sooner pass a camel through the eye of a sewing needle.  What you propose is categorically impossible.  The only thing one may do away with is respect of rights through universal denial.  Denial does not, however, remove them from reality - it only means that force and the threat of force is used to prevent people from exercising their birthright.




> They are nothing more than privileges with certain legal protections granted to us by the Bill of Rights and other legislation.


May I recommend you take up a dictionary and look up the words "right" and "privilege".  You will find that the two are wholly different and not even remotely similar or related in any way or degree.  The Bill of Rights does not grant rights because it is categorically impossible to do so.  The BoR merely enumerates a small number of rights that are explicitly protected from incursion by they government.  As if to make sure that no numb-nut got into his head the notion that the enumerated rights were the only ones protected by the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it clear that the people retain ALL rights and that the government is not empowered to infringe upon any of them.

----------


## osan

> Rights can be taken away with, and only with, due process, but should only be taken away for infringing on the rights of others.


Wrong.  They can never be taken away - only abridged in the case of having been duly convicted of a felony.  This is reasonable within very narrow circumstances.

----------


## Kludge

> This is unequivocally incorrect.  "Inalienable" refers to the fact that they are part and parcel of the fabric of our being as living persons.  As such, they cannot be excised from us by any means whatsoever.  They may, however, be violated in any of a considerable number of ways such as denial, abridgment, and disparagement, to name only three.  This is a crucial point that many people do not grasp well.


That makes the word entirely meaningless. You may as well just say "inherent privilege" instead of "inalienable right."




> Restricted?  How?


If I´m forcibly arrested or shot in the process of committing genocide, my liberty has been restricted.




> Doing away with rights?  You will sooner pass a camel through the eye of a sewing needle.  What you propose is categorically impossible.  The only thing one may do away with is respect of rights through universal denial.  Denial does not, however, remove them from reality - it only means that force and the threat of force is used to prevent people from exercising their birthright.


*do away with granting legal unalienable rights.




> May I recommend you take up a dictionary and look up the words "right" and "privilege".  You will find that the two are wholly different and not even remotely similar or related in any way or degree.  The Bill of Rights does not grant rights because it is categorically impossible to do so.  The BoR merely enumerates a small number of rights that are explicitly protected from incursion by they government.  As if to make sure that no numb-nut got into his head the notion that the enumerated rights were the only ones protected by the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it clear that the people retain ALL rights and that the government is not empowered to infringe upon any of them.


Legal right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature

privilege - A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.

----------


## LookingForward

osan wrote:



> Is this a serious question? The answer should be obvious. Why the answer is what it is may not be quite as obvious. Try reading the essay at the link below in my signature. It is short and should clear up any misunderstanding.


Yes, I was serious.

I appreciate the helpful responses.

I found this response especially useful.



> Exactly. Rights can only belong to individuals. Groups and communities do not possesses rights. Government holds power, not rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights. Rights come from our humanity (and as many believe, from God - although one's belief in higher power is not necessary to acknowledge the existence of rights). Rights and privileges are opposites. The only human rights are individual rights.


Thanks again.

----------


## osan

> That makes the word entirely meaningless. You may as well just say "inherent privilege" instead of "inalienable right."


Once again, and this time slowly: get a dictionary.  The two words are wholly unrelated.  They convey two concepts that are wholly foreign to each other and mutually exclusive.  Does this not make sense to you?




> If I´m forcibly arrested or shot in the process of committing genocide, my liberty has been restricted.


Committing genocide is a _crime_.  By definition, commission of a crime is not within the envelope of one's legitimate rights.  One therefore forfeits the right to exercise certain rights when duly convicted of a crime.  For example, one may be placed into prison for some period, thereby restricting the right to travel here or there.





> *do away with granting legal unalienable rights.


To do so is to commit a crime against those whose rights you have chosen to deny.




> Legal right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature
> 
> privilege - A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.


Try choosing the correct sense of "right" - it has several different meanings.  For example if I own a corporation, I may bestow upon you the right to some percentage of that entity.  Such a "right" is in no way the same as a human right.  Language is a tricky thing.  Without sufficient mastery, all manner of misunderstanding arises.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Rights are what we agree to bestow on ourselves and each other.  The only truely inalienable right to a living being is the right to die.  Some people will argue that people should have certain rights but they are not guaranteed unless people create an enforcement mechanism of those rights. You may think you have the right to an apple growing on a tree in your yard but if a person or animal takes and eats that apple before you get to it, you do not have the rights to that apple.  We can agree to enact laws to protect your right to that apple- it does not mean you will not lose that apple but if somebody takes it away they can be punished.  This is also true of personal liberty.   You may think you have the right to move freely but that can be taken away and again we can enact laws to punish people taking away your liberty but they are not truely inalienable since it is impossible to stop somebody from taking them from you.

----------


## dgr

You miss the whole point, it said "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unailianable Rights"
and the right to priviacy was not one of them. The Supreme Court established the right to privicy in a case dealing with the right for birth control, that was then expanded to cover abortion in Roe vs Wade.
The founding father believed your God gave you the rights not your goverment

----------


## pcosmar

*Rights can not be taken away.* They are absolute.
The ability to exercise those rights can be taken by force (govt/law) or can be surrendered by choice.
Rights still exist.

----------


## newbitech

> think of it as un-a-lien-able... instead of un-alien-able...



Nice insight thanks for that!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You miss the whole point, it said "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unailianable Rights"
> and the right to priviacy was not one of them. The Supreme Court established the right to privicy in a case dealing with the right for birth control, that was then expanded to cover abortion in Roe vs Wade.
> The founding father believed your God gave you the rights not your goverment


Unless you have laws to protect the rights, then anybody can take them from you. Even if they are  "endowed by the Creator" as the Declaration of Independence says. Did slaves have the right to Liberty or the Persuit of Happiness?

----------


## LookingForward

> Unless you have laws to protect the rights, then anybody can take them from you. Even if they are  "endowed by the Creator" as the Declaration of Independence says. Did slaves have the right to Liberty or the Persuit of Happiness?


Slaves had rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness but their rights were _violated_.

----------


## Voltaire

> Unless you have laws to protect the rights, then anybody can take them from you.


I probably would've fell in league with those who opposed the bill of rights, on the grounds that a bill of rights limits my rights rather than expands them.  If my rights are enumerated, then my government can simply deny the rights that are not enumerated.

Left to the 9th and 10th amendments, the non-enumerated rights have been completely trampled.

Better to have no enumerated rights and then all rights are equally inviolable.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Zippyjuan

Which would mean that if an unalienable right is one which is available to everybody and cannot be taken away then that is death.  Unless you believe in what Jean Paul Sartre says:



> Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you


then you can find freedom in whatever situation you are in and that cannot be truely taken from you. Freedom is a state of mind. If you feel oppressed, you are. 

Rights are what you exercise. They are not given to you. If they are given then they can also be taken away. 

Do two wrongs make a right? 

Are there inalienable wrongs? 

OK- getting a little silly now.

----------


## osan

> Rights are what we agree to bestow on ourselves and each other.


Categorically incorrect.  Were this so, then a right would be a fluid thing.  It is not.  You are confusing a right and a privilege.  These are mutually exclusive concepts, having absolutely nothing to do with each other.




> The only truely inalienable right to a living being is the right to die.


Oh dear... methinks you need to sit alone in a quiet, dark room, preferably in a comfortable chair and think on this for as long as it takes to become apparent to you just how mind numbingly wrong this is.  It may take hours.  Or years.  Keep at it because if you really believe what you wrote, you're in a lot of trouble.




> Some people will argue that people should have certain rights but they are not guaranteed unless people create an enforcement mechanism of those rights.


No.  There is no such thing as rights that one should or should not have.  Rights are facts.  We determine privileges.  Rights follow from the acceptance of the premise that we are each born as free beings, which in turn follows from an acceptance of the notion of equality (or more precisely, equivalence) between us all.  If these two  conditions are accepted as true, the rest follows axiomatically and apodictically.  That much I can promise you. 




> You may think you have the right to an apple growing on a tree in your yard but if a person or animal takes and eats that apple before you get to it, you do not have the rights to that apple.


What you are describing has nothing to do with rights per se, but rather the violation of them.  If an apple is growing on a tree on YOUR PROPERTY, you hold the right to dispose of that apple as you see fit.  If someone else takes it before you can get to it and they do so without your consent, that is theft, which is a crime.  That one commits a crime against you, it does not follow that the rights they violated in so doing did not exist.  For example, by your reasoning you hold no right to your own life.  I may therefore murder you with impunity because crimes are necessarily defined (albeit indirectly in some cases) as violations of the rights of others.  If you have no rights to violate, then I can commit no crime against you no matter what I do.  If you redefine "right" to be synonymous with privilege, then you are opening a huge can of worms because then one's rights are necessarily arbitrary and may be redefined at whim.  How happy would you be if your right to life were legislated away?  Not very, I would bet.




> We can agree to enact laws to protect your right to that apple- it does not mean you will not lose that apple but if somebody takes it away they can be punished.  This is also true of personal liberty.   You may think you have the right to move freely but that can be taken away and again we can enact laws to punish people taking away your liberty but they are not truely inalienable since it is impossible to stop somebody from taking them from you.


You do NOT understand rights or the concept of inalienability.

----------


## osan

> Rights can be taken away with, and only with, due process, but should only be taken away for infringing on the rights of others.


Not quite there.  Rights can never be taken away - they may in this case be abridged, presumably for some limited time, until whatever debt is satisfied, after which the abridgement is lifted.  Placing one in ptison upon due conviction of a crime abridges one's right to move freely about to a great extent.  One's right to life, however, is not abridged, save in capital cases where a sentence of death has been duly imposed.

These differences can be subtle, but they are fundamental and must be apprehended and understood lest all proper understanding wash away in the endless torrent of ignorance that threatens us all.

Endeavor to understand with propriety and correctness.  Endeavor to be particular and impeccable in your intellectual habtis.  It is, I promise you, important to the quality of your life, as well as those of the people around you.

----------


## Legend1104

I see the Bill of Rights as the way our founders attempted to determine what restrictions to place on the government in order to protect our rights. The declaration says that " amoung them were the right to life, liberty, and the persute of happiness." So, I kinda saw the "rights" enumerated in the BoRs as the attempt to protect us from attacks upon our rights. True rights should be those that existed in all men everywhere through all time given by God. So the right the bear arms, for example, is not an actual inalienable right because guns have not always existed, but the right to protect oneself and ones rights is inalienable. I also agree that inalienable rights can not be taken away. Since they are given by God, to do so would be to wrestle them from God himself. Although, people can infringe upon us. Maybe it is kinda like owning a tv when the power company has turned off your power. They may have stopped you from being able to watch tv, but they have not actually taken away your tv set.

----------


## therepublic

> People are free to do whatever they want.  What you articulate as rights from the constitution are only limitations of federal government.


True.  The Constitution was written to limit the powers of the government.  However we are free to do as we please as long as we do not harm another person, and if our actions harm others, it becomes a legal matter for the courts. Example: what two consenting adults do is none of the Government's business.  however if  if it is not mutually consenting adults, a crime may have been committed...a matter for the courts.

----------

