I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Every "right" be they "unalienable" or not can be taken away by other men. Because of this there is no such thing as an "unalienable right". Life can be taken. Property can be taken. Freedom of movement and of speech can be taken. Happiness can be taken. We live on the good graces of the majority of people.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Is the following quote reckless in the extreme? Then read my 2008 paper about monetary theory:
Here we go again...
1. Simply because a right can be feasibly violated does not change the fact that said right is "inalienable". The Founding Fathers were not claiming that inalienable rights were invisible force-fields which protected us from any and all danger; they were merely claiming that governments and other individuals do not retain the authority to morally deny others those rights.
2. Holding people who lived hundreds of years ago to modern social standards is a logical and academic fallacy. The phrase "all men" was symptomatic of the era in which it was written, and although it was an exclusionary statement it was nonetheless one of the most important moments in history as it established the concept of natural rights, which we all enjoy today. The Founding Fathers were not perfect but they did the best they could with what they had.
3. The Constitution is a legal document whereas the Declaration of Independence is more of a philosophical one. Philosophically "all men" are afforded these inalienable rights but legally we can only apply them to American citizens. This is merely a symptom of conceptual and practical necessity and does nothing to undermine either document's precepts.
4. As for "other rights" I believe the general concept of "life, liberty, and property" covers all of them well-enough. So long as your "life, liberty, and property" does not infringe on the "life, liberty, and property" of others then you are exercising a valid right. Rights as the Founding Fathers saw them were "negative rights" in that they obliged or required the inaction of a third party. Simply put, the right to be left alone.
The correct spelling is unalienable.
Both forms of spelling are acceptable.