• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What other rights are unalienable to all men?

The Bill or Rights basically nails it, but they are essentially a further breakdown of those that the Declaration names.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
The Bill or Rights basically nails it, but they are essentially a further breakdown of those that the Declaration names.
Click to expand...

You believe that the bill of rights extends then to people in Guantanamo and not just American citizens?
 
Re: Jocularity

Monk-Eye said:
"Jocularity"
There is no such thing as unalienable rights.
Click to expand...

People disagree with you :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Jocularity

Hatuey said:
People disagree with you :
Click to expand...

The people who wrote that had a different idea of what "all men" meant than you do.
trust me.
 
Yikes

"Yikes"
1069 said:
The people who wrote that had a different idea of what "all men" meant than you do. trust me.
Click to expand...
Literally men and not women; and, look out Ham.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Both forms of spelling are acceptable.
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would say that we can only apply them where the person in question falls under our jurisdiction, not just American Citizens. Otherwise, we could prosecute non-citizens for certain speech and whatnot.
 
Hatuey said:
You believe that the bill of rights extends then to people in Guantanamo and not just American citizens?
Click to expand...
What a troll. :roll:
 
Southern Man said:
Did not know that. My Cato addition uses the "u". Which did the original version use?
Click to expand...

I remember reading that the founders actually had an argument about inalienable vs. unalienable, which basically boiled down to "well, at Harvard we say unalienable" and "well, at Cambridge we say inalienable."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom