unalienable rights

mannequinhands

what is unalienable rights rights in layman's terms heard a few people going on about it before but not quite sure what exactly it is

jargon buster

apparently it is a right given by God that cannot be taken away.:rolleyes:


In reality rights are simply things other people allow you to do.
You can claim a right to do anything you like but if other peope dont like what it is you're doing they will stop you.
Rights are just man made fictions to try and make you feel better about the world you live in.

Tzar Chasm

George Carlin had a good take on Rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ivYN-j--ao

the point he makes about being Japanese in America during WW2 hammers home the point

xflyer

Jargon buster is right as was my Father years ago who stopped me ranting about my 'rights' by quietly pointing out:

'The only rights you have are those other people allow you to have'.

Shut me up that.

Condatis

Unalienable rights are those which can not be altered by law.

The most extreme examples would be the right of free thought and freedoms of expression and of association.

Inalienable rights may be altered by law. For example, the right to cut turf from your bog.

Surely this is the wrong forum for this question.

jargon buster

Unalienable rights are those which can not be altered by law.

The most extreme examples would be the right of free thought and freedoms of expression and of association.

I take it you havent been to North Korea?

What about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe?

Condatis

jargon buster wrote: »

I take it you havent been to North Korea?

What about Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe?

I'll try and keep it simple for you. I took the opening post to be a sincere request for information and responded in the same spirit.

When we talk about law we usually mean 'right law' in a general sense. Where the question relates to the laws of states we mean states that subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such international concordats. This, usually, would be the understanding of rational people answering the question posed.

I took it that the question posed was in the context of debate in this jurisdiction about possible new statutes or referenda.

Apart from that; where rights usually seen as unalienable are abrogated or interdicted by the action of 'rouge' regimes the inherent unalienable rights still exist even though they have been abused.

seamus

Unalienable and inalienable have the same meaning.

In either case they describe rights which in a fair society cannot be removed or restricted by law or by force.

It's a theoretical and shifting concept in reality - the UDHR sets out what its signatories believe to be the inalienable rights of a human being, but there is no final or definitive list of these rights.

For example, in the United States many would quote "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as inalienable rights, yet they still execute people. Which means that these are not inalienable rights - if someone's right to life can be removed through law, then it is not inalienable.

Condatis

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as "not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights" and inalienable as "cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another."

The US Declaration of Independence reads:
“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law.

Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights - a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another).

jargon buster

I'll try and keep it simple for you. I took the opening post to be a sincere request for information and responded in the same spirit.

When we talk about law we usually mean 'right law' in a general sense. Where the question relates to the laws of states we mean states that subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such international concordats. This, usually, would be the understanding of rational people answering the question posed.

I took it that the question posed was in the context of debate in this jurisdiction about possible new statutes or referenda.

Apart from that; where rights usually seen as unalienable are abrogated or interdicted by the action of 'rouge' regimes the inherent unalienable rights still exist even though they have been abused.

I will try and keep it simple for you.
Rights are a man made construct and they dont exist unless other men allow you to have them.
A right is only a right if it can be exercised,so if as you put it, a "rouge regime" removes that right then it ceases to exist in anything except your mind and its not much use in there is it?

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law.

Total hogwash, law can alter and take away any so called inalienable rights.
How does a man who beleives his unalienable rights are being taken away seek satisfaction?
Its through the the law and through the support of other men, and if the law and the other men dont agree with him, then what use is his claim of rights?

xflyer

Jargon Buster, you'll find that a lot. People living in 'free' societies don't really get it. Ask a North Korean or an Iranian or any number of denizens of countries where freedom is hard to come by and they might understand.

Any right can be taken off you even in free countries. It happens every day.