From the web

Inalienable vs. unalienable
English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else.

yes, and those words' 'concepts' were established by Natural Right of Existence, right? No consensus, agreement or cultural relevance, eh?

Unlike Some Special Laws...
Hey, thank you, too. This has been almost as fun as chocolate but nowhere near as much fun as sex.

Thank you for your exposition of the concert bound realists who denies that concepts exists. BTW why are you using words? All words are concepts.

... and you seem to be in denial that ALL of the Truths, Laws and Rights of which you speak are the inventions of Man (collectively, including women, etc... so as to not PC-offend anyone... :) )

I'm saying the "What Is" is that humans created ALL 'rules' including the concept of "Natural Rights" and it's not relevant or dependent on What IS or What 'Should Be.'

But, since you seem to be married to your opinion, enjoy it. That, too, does not make it any more 'right' than what I've been saying, other than you think it does. And you still can't manage that self-contradiction...

But hey, I'm just an old fart EE... what the hell do _I_ know about philosophy?!
:)

As best as I can follow you are confusing what is, with what should be. Ethics is not the study of what is, but what should be or what one should do. It is the standard by which things are judged. You cannot try a man for murder unless there is a standard of conduct by which you are judging him. The same is true of government.

Sorry, I take part of it back... Your comment about my ignorance WAS accurate. I did some research on Locke and Natural Rights via http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke which I got from a google search, https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n... .

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-... is another one I found quite interesting, too...

But so far, all of them comprise a kind of mutual circle-jerk of rationalizing the irrational... that these "Laws" or "Rights" spring from some Source's forehead and manifest themselves into the world, and NOT that they're all an invention of people And Consensus, listed and collected as "nice rules to follow so that we don't all go out and kill each other."

So, thank you for prompting me to become more educated. It worked. I now have a somewhat better understanding of some of the roots of Locke's principles.

On the other hand, it's also shown me that the arguments put forth are not as iron-clad as Believers In Locke might like to think... there are still unanswered Socratic questions in the realm of "Ok, Where Did THAT Come From?".

I'm sorry if you can't see the contradiction in the 'explanations and education' I've been offered.

The ignorance comment was a fact, not ad hominum. I assume you know English also, if you were ignorant of English on this site it would not be ad hominum to point it out.

If you are on this site and you do not know the origin of Natural Rights then your ignorance is profound. But even that ignorance does not excuse the concrete bound anti-conceptual arguments you made above.

Actually, db, I'm beginning to believe that an argument that included Natural Rights without explicitly acknowledging their Basis or Where They Come From or Who Decided What They Are and Why... is its own kind of laziness... though Maybe not 'dishonest.'

---Which is the issue I was raising and the point which I was attempting to make... which I do not think you addressed in your reply.

No you are confusing ethics and political theory with practical politics. Physics still exists whether I acknowledge it or not. Second you need a standard, Rights, by which to judge a government's actions. Otherwise all you can say is the government does whatever it does. Rights are the standard by which you can make the moral judgement of whether a government is proper or one of its actions is proper. So they exist separate from whether any group of people decide to create a government that is consistent with Natural Rights.

Your line of reasoning is based on anti-conceptual reasoning. Only immediate reality is real. This is not profound, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

The Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

Thank you, db.... but (of course...)...
So Locke 'formulated' the concept of Natural Rights.
ok, I'm fine with that...
BUT... Natural Rights can only exist if there's consensus in the tribe, group, society, culture, whatever... that Natural Rights accrue to its members. Anyway, that's my position on it.

The list of 'immoral and illegal' acts are also 'by agreement' BECAUSE they don't jibe with AGREED-upon definitions of "Natural Rights."

imnsho. And I DO like the list you put forth of those Natural Rights (of self-ownership and its implications)!

Oh, wait... that still leaves open the argument/discussion of WHEN those "Rights" accrue to your "Self"... viz: the whole abortion 'rights' 'discussion.'

Oh, well...
Cheers!

The word Right or Rights has been perverted. This phrase started from Locke's formulation of Natural Rights. Natural Rights starts, most easily, from the concept that you own yourself. If you own yourself, then slavery, murder, theft, assault, are immoral and illegal. If you own yourself, then you own those things your create (make productive) and that is where property rights come from. If you own yourself (and your property) then you can enter into binding agreements to trade these, which is where contracts come from.

db... help me please... what are "Natural Rights" and how do they differ from the 'rights' I was talking about?
Thanks!

Lol!

the virtual shoot the messenger mentality. :)

Who would down vote you for being courteous? +1

Whatever rights you assert, someone will refuse to abide by them.

"endowed by their Creator" was included simply as a fallacious argument. It amounts to saying, "The [imaginary] King of Everything has endorsed MY view, so the rest of you shut up!"

God is the world's oldest sock-puppet. People have been forging his name to arguments since before recorded history.

Has anyone ever proven this? I know Ayn Rand didn't. I consider this to be the greatest challenge for Objectivists.

That is a misuse of the word right - of course that is one of these problems. Here of course we were discussing Natural Rights.

Thank you. You are right. No matter how I think , feel or believe the consensus wins in our society. However their consensus still don't sway my mind or thinking.

Which is exactly why the Framers placed fundamental rights out of the reach of people.