Civil Liberties

merrily

(45,251 posts)

1. I do not understand the benefit of a right that one cannot enforce.

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:06 AM

Mar 2015

Jefferson, who owned slaves, including his own children, wrote of "certain inalienable rights," inalienable meaning something you cannot sell or give away, even if you wish to do so and something that cannot be taken from you. Something that is inalienable is something that is non-transferable, period. If slavery does not negate the concept of inalienability, I don't know what would.

ETA: I agree that all humans should have certain rights, using morals and ethics as my standard. I do not agree that all humans indeed do have all the rights they should have. What does a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean, really, if you can be murdered or enslaved or even killed accidentally or by a force of nature?

I guess I think the time debating what natural rights are and what they should be would be better spent getting enforceable laws passed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A question and why I avoid using terms like... [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 OP

I do not understand the benefit of a right that one cannot enforce. merrily Mar 2015 #1

Rights, IMHO, should be used in the formulation of laws and... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #2

Using what rights one thinks people should have to pass laws is about what I said, isn't it? merrily Mar 2015 #3

Thanks for highlighting the edit discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #4

LOL, the highlight was an edit, too! merrily Mar 2015 #5

Yes :) discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #7

IMHO, we differ on the sense of "have" discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #6

I am somewhat content to come out in the same place, regardless of how each of us gets there. merrily Mar 2015 #8