Reply #48: ah, those concepts [View All]

[iverglas]

"Because they're really not. The 'unalienable' rights you mentioned are listed as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. However, we take those rights away on a regular basis when someone is found guilty of a crime."

No, we (including you) don't.

We do not take away people's rights. Regardless of what basis we use for our belief in rights (god-given, social contract, "natural", ...), we pretty much all agree that they cannot be taken away.

Not "may not be taken away". Cannot be taken away. That really IS what "unalienable" means.

What we *do* do is prevent people from exercising the rights they have.

When we put someone in prison for a serious offence, it is because we believe that we have justification for preventing them from exercising the right to liberty. We really do not "take away" their right to liberty, because we just can't do that.

When the Taliban ordered women not to venture out of their homes except on terms approved by the Taliban, it was preventing women from exercising their right to liberty. The Taliban really could not "take away" women's right to liberty. The Taliban just did not have the authority to do that. Women, as human beings, have rights that are not subject to Taliban giving or taking. It did violate that right -- what we usually call it when a person's rights are interfered with without justification.


"So, unalienable? Not really. Not in some circumstances."

So: wrong. Really. In all circumstances.


"Mine is not just personal preferance. In some states my "opinion" is backed up by policy, if not written law. IE, Texas and South Carolina"

Yup, and in Afghanistan, the Taliban's personal preference was backed up by their laws and policies.

Laws and policies that violate constitutional norms don't get to stay on the books -- at least, not after someone challenges them, and as long as the authorities vested with the power to interpret laws and constitutions do so in good faith.

Why, not so very long ago it was illegal in Alabama for people to marry people of different races. That was law. It was an unconstitutional law, in the US. But there it sat, being the law, until someone challenged it and the appropriate authority said that it was unconstitutional. The fact that it was unconstitutional did not, however, depend on that authority's say-so: it was unconstitutional before that authority said so, and the authority in question (the US Supreme Court) simply said it out loud. It is only that authority's say-so that can have the effect of making the law unenforceable, but whether a law is actually constitutional or not is, amazingly, a matter of opinion.

Some opinions on such questions are more worthwhile than others -- but the source of the opinion is of course not the determining factor (and any claim that it is, is of course simply ad personam argument).

So ...

"In South Carolina however, yours is irrellevant, as the AG apparently feels that when you invade someones home you are setting yourself up to be killed and thereby forfeit your "unalienable" right to life."

... my opinion on the constitutionality of a US state law that permitted burglars to be shot on sight would be irrelevant when the issue was the correct outcome of a case *under that law*, but *not* when the issue was whether or not the law itself was constitutional. My opinion on the latter issue might or might not be worthwhile, but that would be determined by the merits of the argument I presented in support of it.

"Do the opinions expressed on DU make a lick of differance to public figures? Probably not. But we post here anyways because we enjoy it. Pardon the wording but the 'relevance' just isnt relevant."

Certainly it isn't, to anyone who simply enjoys hearing him/herself speak. Or to anyone who enjoys reading other people's opinions without being given any reason why they might be worth adopting.

"I like blue."
"Blue is ugly."
"Is not."
"Is so."
"So's yer old man."

Not the sort of thing I spend my time on ...

.