An Inalienable right

LTP

Mar 2018
2,104
410
Undisclosed Bunker
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
What can we say? Some people think that by trolling, misrepresenting people and having to address every post they make transforms them into something they are not. Responding to you is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel. You cannot come up with one, single, solitary sentence containing any fact that refutes what I post.
 

LTP

Mar 2018
2,104
410
Undisclosed Bunker
Alright, then please keep it off of the forum.
I'm with you man. When I take this stuff to PM, people just bring it right back out into open forum. I've been ready for any and all challengers, but I'm going to dish out as much as I'm having to take. If Nat Mo .... what the other poster said keeps the pissing match in PM, I'll be more than HAPPY to oblige.
 
Sep 2017
117
22
Houston TX
You have an unalienable Right to the Freedom of Speech. You can criticize your government and anybody else to the point of violating their Rights and you're protected. Once you jeopardize the Rights of another, you put yourself in a position wherein society can and will incarcerate you until you are punished to society's standards (and you should be rehabilitated IMO.) Then there can be lawsuits for civil damages if you cause harm to another. 8.
Sorry, but all it takes is one counterexample to falsify broad, sweeping generalizations such as yours (“When anyone tries to limit unalienable Rights, they are advocating sedition and treason.”) The limits on self-defense are one such counter example. You’ve just provided another counter example. There are more examples of reasonable limits. But one is sufficient.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,433
30,633
Colorado
I'm with you man. When I take this stuff to PM, people just bring it right back out into open forum. I've been ready for any and all challengers, but I'm going to dish out as much as I'm having to take. If Nat Mo .... what the other poster said keeps the pissing match in PM, I'll be more than HAPPY to oblige.
Keep it in a PM. Ain't nobody, especially me, wanna be a part of a couple of dudes' pissing match, dig? ;)

Please, say no more on forum.
 

LTP

Mar 2018
2,104
410
Undisclosed Bunker
Sorry, but all it takes is one counterexample to falsify broad, sweeping generalizations such as yours (“When anyone tries to limit unalienable Rights, they are advocating sedition and treason.”) The limits on self-defense are one such counter example. You’ve just provided another counter example. There are more examples of reasonable limits. But one is sufficient.
Most reasonable people would understand that your position is bogus. Let us reiterate:

Unalienable Rights are a journey, not a destination. The objective is to always move toward Liberty. The very word unalienable means "Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred." (older versions of Black's Law Dictionary)

The word incapable means unable. The courts have declared certain Rights to be unalienable (see post # 1.) This concept is much different than the word inalienable, which means the right cannot be aliened unless you consent to forfeit the Right. Now, let us go to the next concept:

I have Rights; you have Rights; every swinging Richard has Rights. White, black, red, yellow, citizen, foreigner, undocumented foreigner, male, female, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc., etc. ad infinitum we all have Rights. Now, if you misuse your Rights and jeopardize mine, nature is out of harmony. We end up with competing Rights and something must be done to make the world whole. To that end, man empowers government:

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

The objective of government is not to limit Rights; it's function is to insure the Right. If you misuse your Rights and endanger the Rights of another, you are to be held accountable and punished for the wrongdoing. That is not an attempt to infringe on the Right AND I will go further: until recent years, once you had paid your debt to society, you then retained your Rights as a freeman. The existence of a claim Right in one individual involves a corresponding (or correlative duty) to another. Contrary to your assertion, this is NOT a broad generalization. The government is held to strict standards in securing the Rights of the citizenry. The fact that we live under an illegal / immoral / de facto / unconstitutional government does not negate the intent of the founders / framers. It appears to me that you pose a danger to Liberty with your incessant chatter. Thomas Jefferson once stated:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, (sic) and government to gain ground."

You are advocating for such a proposition while I am all for making conditions more conducive to Liberty while protecting the Rights of all. You failed to bring any new argument to the table and are relying on literary gymnastics to cover up what you really mean. You're selling tyranny on the installment plan and your view was sufficiently dealt with in post # 1.
 
Dec 2018
5,566
1,470
New England
There is really no getting around it, any assertion that a right is unalienable (or inalienable, as today they are regarded to mean the same thing) is an assertion one does not believe in democracy or a democratic process.

In any form of government there must be an ultimate authority. Someone gets the last word on when a law is just or not. In our system of government, I believe that ultimate authority is the will of the people as expressed through two-thirds of their representatives in Congress and three fourths of their state legislatures. Those who believe in/unalienable rights would instead have you believe that the ultimate authority in our country is the will of God as expressed by the people He presumably inspired to enumerate this set of in/unalienable rights . Their reasoning is simple: our Lord on High wishes a right to be immutable, he puts those words in the mouths of a few mortals, and voila, you have a right to do something that no majority -- no matter how overwhelmingly large -- could ever take away. Such a system is not, of course, a democracy -- it's a theocracy with a high priesthood calling the shots. If that's what you believe in, fine, go for it, but if you seek to have dogma rule our days do not pretend to be speaking for a government of the people, because you're not.