Inalienable Rights

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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 abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government"

To Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happyness

Re: Inalienable Rights


Hi Paul2K:

Our founding fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke with respect to natural rights and liberty.

People were accustomed to being ruled by Kings -- and Kings claimed that they ruled by Devine Right. The King could do no wrong. In the mid-seventeenth century, it was certainly a radical and dangerous thing to preach that all men were created equal and that all men were born with inalienable rights (among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

To answer your question -- what makes a "right" inalienable -- you have to simply recognize that individuals ought to have the right to freely do whatever makes them happy so long as they do not injure others (or infringe on other people's individual rights).

A lot of people get caught up in specifics and semantics. As an example, some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that a man has the right to spit -- so spitting is not a protected activity. Another example: Some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that an adult male has the right to engage in consensual sex with another adult male -- therefore consensual sexual conduct between two adult males is not a protected activity. We can go on and on and on with examples, but that simply ignores the fact that the concept of "liberty" encompasses all human activity.

Our government was formed to protect people -- to secure their individual inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government is not allowed to intrude into the private lives of its citizens because doing so chips away at their liberty interests. Government is not allowed to penalize individual conduct unless that conduct injures other people.

Government does not GRANT rights -- its purpose is to protect and secure the rights that all individuals possess by the simple virtue of being born. Government serves the people -- not the other way around.

Freedom of speech -- especially political speech -- is considered a "fundamental right." Nevertheless, the government can impose reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on the right to speak. But, whenever the government restricts individual LIBERTY, the government must have a compelling interest in doing so and the means used must be necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

Throughout the existence of our country, our government has often crossed the line and has regulated and punished individual exercises of fundamental liberty interests. As we become more enlightened and advanced as a people, the errors are corrected. Sometimes it takes decades -- even centuries -- to correct errors.

Ah... so the inalienable rights stem from the fact that all persons are created equal? ... so it is essentialy, "who are you to tell me what to do?" in all cases except where others would be harmed (the greater societel good, etc.)... and then groups of sovereign individuals have the right to assemble and create their own rules for themselves (which are presumably enforced on other minorities in "their" lands).

Seems like this should be stressed in our culture where many (esp. the youth) think "the government" and "the people" are two different things.

Also seems interesting that the entire basis of our culture is based on a Christian concept of "creation" and the essential equality of every human. "Survival Of the Fittest" or our humanistic evolutionary theories certainly don't leave a person thinking there is anything necessarily "equal" among different humans.