What do you personally consider to be an "inalienable right"?

[Northern_Piper]

@Charlie_Tan

I think all ‘rights’ should be inalienable because I think that a right shouldn’t cost the state / goverment / tax payers / anything. If it in any way needs to be paid by some other entity than yourself, it’s not a right, it’s a benefit.

Just to consider this point: that means that the right to vote is not inalienable? Modern democracy only functions if the government provides a complex system, paid for by taxpayers, that ensures that citizens can vote in free and fair elections.

So democratic self-government is not inalienable?

[velomont]

@msmith537

@velomont

I’ll give it a shot:

1. The right to do any job one wants as long as the candidate meets valid minimum performance standards, regardless of gender, sexuality.
2. The right to a safe, secure, and dependable shelter, regardless of income.
3. The right to sufficient quantity and quality of food to maintain health, regardless of income.
4. The right to a minimum standard of timely health care, regardless of income.

But you understand that all these “rights” need to be provided at the expense of someone else’s labor and resources? THAT’s the problem. You can’t force employers to hire people for jobs they don’t need, even if they are all qualified. Homes, food, and healthcare all require labor and infrastructure as well.

Obviously there’s more to this than I threw against the wall and there are assumptions that need to precede them (eg for 1 there is actually a job for which candidates are applying and competing).

As I also mentioned way up thread, I don’t believe that there are any rights that sapient animals don’t have to invent. So, as such, those are some of my inalienable rights, and obviously others will have different opinions.

[Northern_Piper]

@msmith537

But you understand that all these “rights” need to be provided at the expense of someone else’s labor and resources? THAT’s the problem.

That’s the case with all rights. Unless there is a system of sound government, implementing the rule of law on a basis of equality, rights don’t exist.

Right to property for example? Unless you have a government that passes laws to protect your property, and creates a system to resolve disputes over property, you don’t have a right to property.

Free speech? If you live in a society without laws, where power is in the hands of local warlords, or a society has laws but that tolerates or encourages private parties to use violence to intimidate you and your kin (eg - night riders in the post-Reconstruction era), you don’t have freedom of speech.

This gets back to @lumpy 's point: the difference between what might be called a natural law analysis, compared to the positivist legal tradition, which always asks, “What does the law protect in this society, and how?” The “should” and the “does” issue.

Good government is the protector of rights.

[Chingon]

You have to understand you’re arguing with people who are starting from the axiom that “government is bad and stops them from doing what they want”.

Their viewpoint is built upon a life of privilege where they can’t even fathom being in a position where the government can be a protective force.

[Tibby]

The right to be free from torture is a universally acknowledged fundamental human right, rooted in international law (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-UDHR-and the United Nations Convention Against Torture–UNCAT. Notably, Article 5 of the UDHR: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Other inalienable rights should include freedom from slavery/servitude, freedom of thought, right to a fair trial, and right to asylum.

Personally, I think the right to live in a Kardashian-free world, and the right to poke fun at idiots should also be included on the list of inalienable rights.

[TriPolar]

@Smapti

There are no inalienable rights. All rights are created by man and can be taken away by man.

They can’t be taken away by aliens though. Or maybe they can’t become aliens. Either way it’s obviously about what we want inalienable rights to be.

[Lumpy]

@Northern_Piper

So democratic self-government is not inalienable?

Strictly, “enfranchisement” to use the old term, isn’t a right. There were long precedents inherited from English common law that only those so privileged got a vote. Once upon a time nobody who didn’t own land got to vote, or who didn’t pay a poll tax, or who weren’t white, or men, or over the age of 20. And simply being a human being accorded citizenship and the protection of the law doesn’t empower one to vote; children, felons and the adjudicated incompetent don’t get to.

Now with voting as an entitlement, it is by definition a positive duty of the government to provide for receiving and counting the votes of the eligible.

[Saint_Cad]

I may have missed this in the tread but I don’t think anyone has mentioned reproductive choice. It is the choice of me and my partner (perhaps with the guidance of our Church but certainly not the government) as to our reproduction. We can argue if abortion is murder or not, but it is inexcusable that it wasn’t until 1965 I had the legal & constitutional right to wear a condom. AND it is a newly created “right to privacy” under the 9th Amendment. No it is not. It is a right to decide whether or not to have sex and to take steps to prevent conception if we choose to. How anyone in a billion years could think that is in a secular government’s power to regulate is beyond me.

ETA: And two justices dissented in Griswold. WTAF?
And Griswold just allowed it for married couples. It took until 1972 me to have the constitutional right to wear a condom with my girlfriend/not-wife.