CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

 

[dcraelin]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

Jefferson also said the will of the majority is the surist guardian of the rights of man. Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Only if the man is in the majority.

Well, as a practical matter, the will of the majority is the sureist guardian, even of the rights of the minority.

The founders implied representation would stay aong th lines of 1 rep for every 10,000 people...we need to expand representation...thus dispersing power and blunting the power of lobbyists.

also need a national initiative option such as the Swiss have, so we can occasionaly bypass entirely the crooks in DC.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Yes, if I am hateful and belligerent and selfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. And if I am cheerful and helpful and unselfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. But I have no material affect on other people by being who and what I am and that requires no contribution or participation by anybody else. It is their choice to relate to me however they choose to do that just as it is my choice to be who and what I am. I am not requiring them to participate in who or what I am in any way.

Use of electricity usually does require contribution and participation by others; therefore to have or use electricity that I do not produce myself is social contract and not an unalienable right. However, what I do on my own property that does not require involuntary contribution or participation by others is my unalienable right and should be inviolate.

If I walk down a street in the nude, I am not materially affecting anyone. At most I will offend people. If I walk down the street waving a Nazi flag, you have the same situation. Under your standards, either both are inalienable rights or neither are. The use of the word "materially" is open to debate. If you define it strictly, then you must actually cause harm. If you define it loosely, freedom of speech goes away.

I think the present system of rights with the understanding that nothing is absolute works much better.[/QUOTE]

The federal government was given no authority to tell you whether you can walk down the street nude or wave any kind of flag. BUT. . . .the federal government also recognized--and should continue to recognize though it gets away from that more and more--that the people have every right to organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and adopt whatever sort of social contract will make possible the sort of societies they wish to have.

It is very important to understand that the Constitution is intended to give certain power to the FEDERAL government only. The federal government was intended to have very limited powers over the state or local communities and in fact was pretty much limited to only those matters necessary to allow the states to function as one nation and prevent them from doing material or physical damage to each other.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I don't think that's the case, and I think this is the misconstruction that's led to so much confusion on the issue. 'Inalienable' doesn't mean 'untouchable'. It simply means it's an inherent by-product of volition. And yes, robbing a bank counts. It's obviously not one of the 'certain inalienable rights' that Jefferson would suggest we secure with government, but it IS inalienable. And a clear understanding of this would go a long way toward clearing up the whole "God given" debate.

But....but....if the very definition of inalienable/unalienable as Jefferson used it is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other person, and probably commiting assault, how could robbing a bank be deemed an inalienable right? You are requiring other people to participate by having their property and perhaps their persons violated. You are requiring involuntary contribution of other people. Just as unjust taxation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the people, so is bank robbery.

There are some other issues that fall into a gray area re unalienable rights--say, public nudity. Do we have the right to vacuum in the nude in the privacy of our own home? Sure. That should absolutely be an unalienable right and no business of anybody else.

Should we be able to be nude in public? Most communities would say no purely because of hygiene reasons if nothing else--nobody wants to put their bare butt on the chair where another bare butt was just sitting. That sort of thing.

Should we be able to go to titty bars and strip clubs or adult bookstores or some Vegas shows or view magazines or movies with extra exposure? I think most of us would say yes - UNLESS - the local community determines as their social contract that they don't want such activity in their community and it should be their unalienable right to vote not to have that if they don't want it.

Should we be able to expose our nudity to strangers on the street? Most American culture says that's a no no, makes it illegal, deems it perverted, and even maintain sex offender categories for such things.

So as with many things, there are common sense absolutes, and some things that fall into gray areas involving cultural taboos for good reason.

A pretty good explanation why there is no such thing as a inalienable right.

No. It's a pretty good explanation of why we have social contract that recognizes that all people do not want the same way of life and the need for recognition of the inalienable right of the people to organize themselves into the sorts of societies they wish to have.

 

[BlackSand]

Well, as a practical matter, the will of the majority is the sureist guardian, even of the rights of the minority.

The founders implied representation would stay aong th lines of 1 rep for every 10,000 people...we need to expand representation...thus dispersing power and blunting the power of lobbyists.

also need a national initiative option such as the Swiss have, so we can occasionaly bypass entirely the crooks in DC.

Do you have short description of the "national initiative" mentioned ... I am not familiar with it? Are you referring to their gold initiative, because that is all I could find in a quick search?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL, or a Congresswoman from Colorado who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought his mother a new can of dog food.

But in the interest of the people calling the shots, it should be left to the people who they send to Congress even if those people are morons. With the limits on Congress on that list, I trust that we will get a much higher caliber of people running for public office and the people will send enough good people to out vote the occasional idiot. At any rate, even if we have all idiots there, they would not have as much power to do idiotic things.

Frankly, I have never thought elections were that great a method. It's just how we have always done it. If you are going to rethink the process, I would suggest a draft. "Greetings from your friends and neighbors, you are now the new senator for Utah." Of course, the potential for hacking would be extreme but at least we would have people who didn't get in because they lied better than the other guy.

I do believe the people electing their own Congressperson from their own area/neighborhood was a reasonable way to give the people a voice in the federal government. And if the proposed rules up there are implemented, it will likely keep such person a representative of his/her district instead of him/her becoming part of a permanent political class that exists for its own self-serving interests.

Originally the state legislatures appointed the Senators for several reasons. The reasoning was that this freed up the Senate from having to expend time and money campaigning and left the Senators free from special interests to focus on the best interests of the whole country and also kept the state legislatures important within the whole structure. I think with our theoretical new constitution, we might consider whether a return to that policy would be a good thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

You're right. You cannot lose a right that falls within the realm of unalienable right. But you can choose to relinquish some or all of an unalienable right for whatever reason and you can be prevented from exercising an unalienable right. That is the purpose of the Constitution--to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people.

 

[PratchettFan]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL, or a Congresswoman from Colorado who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought his mother a new can of dog food.

But in the interest of the people calling the shots, it should be left to the people who they send to Congress even if those people are morons. With the limits on Congress on that list, I trust that we will get a much higher caliber of people running for public office and the people will send enough good people to out vote the occasional idiot. At any rate, even if we have all idiots there, they would not have as much power to do idiotic things.

Frankly, I have never thought elections were that great a method. It's just how we have always done it. If you are going to rethink the process, I would suggest a draft. "Greetings from your friends and neighbors, you are now the new senator for Utah." Of course, the potential for hacking would be extreme but at least we would have people who didn't get in because they lied better than the other guy.

I do believe the people electing their own Congressperson from their own area/neighborhood was a reasonable way to give the people a voice in the federal government. And if the proposed rules up there are implemented, it will likely keep such person a representative of his/her district instead of him/her becoming part of a permanent political class that exists for its own self-serving interests.

Originally the state legislatures appointed the Senators for several reasons. The reasoning was that this freed up the Senate from having to expend time and money campaigning and left the Senators free from special interests to focus on the best interests of the whole country and also kept the state legislatures important within the whole structure. I think with our theoretical new constitution, we might consider whether a return to that policy would be a good thing.

We did that. The country, after operating under that method for a century, determined it didn't work. That's why we have the 17th amendment. Why would you think what didn't work before will work now?

 

[PratchettFan]

.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Yes, if I am hateful and belligerent and selfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. And if I am cheerful and helpful and unselfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. But I have no material affect on other people by being who and what I am and that requires no contribution or participation by anybody else. It is their choice to relate to me however they choose to do that just as it is my choice to be who and what I am. I am not requiring them to participate in who or what I am in any way.

Use of electricity usually does require contribution and participation by others; therefore to have or use electricity that I do not produce myself is social contract and not an unalienable right. However, what I do on my own property that does not require involuntary contribution or participation by others is my unalienable right and should be inviolate.

If I walk down a street in the nude, I am not materially affecting anyone. At most I will offend people. If I walk down the street waving a Nazi flag, you have the same situation. Under your standards, either both are inalienable rights or neither are. The use of the word "materially" is open to debate. If you define it strictly, then you must actually cause harm. If you define it loosely, freedom of speech goes away.

I think the present system of rights with the understanding that nothing is absolute works much better.

The federal government was given no authority to tell you whether you can walk down the street nude or wave any kind of flag. BUT. . . .the federal government also recognized--and should continue to recognize though it gets away from that more and more--that the people have every right to organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and adopt whatever sort of social contract will make possible the sort of societies they wish to have.

It is very important to understand that the Constitution is intended to give certain power to the FEDERAL government only. The federal government was intended to have very limited powers over the state or local communities and in fact was pretty much limited to only those matters necessary to allow the states to function as one nation and prevent them from doing material or physical damage to each other.[/QUOTE]

I understand the intent. It didn't work very well and it has changed. We should acknowledge that in the new constitution and change the intent. I think dissolving the states entirely would be the way to go. All citizens of the nation would have the same rights regardless of where they lived. They would live under the same laws with the same courts.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

You're right. You cannot lose a right that falls within the realm of unalienable right. But you can choose to relinquish some or all of an unalienable right for whatever reason and you can be prevented from exercising an unalienable right. That is the purpose of the Constitution--to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people.

You can't relinquish and inalienable right. It is, by definition, inseparable from you. There is no point in creating a Constitution to secure inalienable rights because you cannot secure that which cannot be removed. You might as well set up a government to secure the sun rising in the morning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think dissolving the states entirely would be the way to go. All citizens of the nation would have the same rights regardless of where they lived. They would live under the same laws with the same courts.

Yeah... put that on you list of things likely to happen after hell freezes over.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL, or a Congresswoman from Colorado who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought his mother a new can of dog food.

But in the interest of the people calling the shots, it should be left to the people who they send to Congress even if those people are morons. With the limits on Congress on that list, I trust that we will get a much higher caliber of people running for public office and the people will send enough good people to out vote the occasional idiot. At any rate, even if we have all idiots there, they would not have as much power to do idiotic things.

Frankly, I have never thought elections were that great a method. It's just how we have always done it. If you are going to rethink the process, I would suggest a draft. "Greetings from your friends and neighbors, you are now the new senator for Utah." Of course, the potential for hacking would be extreme but at least we would have people who didn't get in because they lied better than the other guy.

I do believe the people electing their own Congressperson from their own area/neighborhood was a reasonable way to give the people a voice in the federal government. And if the proposed rules up there are implemented, it will likely keep such person a representative of his/her district instead of him/her becoming part of a permanent political class that exists for its own self-serving interests.

Originally the state legislatures appointed the Senators for several reasons. The reasoning was that this freed up the Senate from having to expend time and money campaigning and left the Senators free from special interests to focus on the best interests of the whole country and also kept the state legislatures important within the whole structure. I think with our theoretical new constitution, we might consider whether a return to that policy would be a good thing.

We did that. The country, after operating under that method for a century, determined it didn't work. That's why we have the 17th amendment. Why would you think what didn't work before will work now?

I don't know that it was determined that it didn't work. It is true that internal squabbling among a very few state legislatures resulted in them sending no senator to Washington, but is that such a terrible thing? Who does that hurt other than the state that couldn't get its act together?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think dissolving the states entirely would be the way to go. All citizens of the nation would have the same rights regardless of where they lived. They would live under the same laws with the same courts.

Yeah... put that on you list of things likely to happen after hell freezes over.

Whoa, you've attributed a quote to me that I absolutely did not say. I have NEVER advocated doing away with the states. In fact I am strenuously arguing for the states to regain their lost authority and power and for much more power to be left with the states and local communities.

 

[Foxfyre]

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

You're right. You cannot lose a right that falls within the realm of unalienable right. But you can choose to relinquish some or all of an unalienable right for whatever reason and you can be prevented from exercising an unalienable right. That is the purpose of the Constitution--to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people.

You can't relinquish and inalienable right. It is, by definition, inseparable from you. There is no point in creating a Constitution to secure inalienable rights because you cannot secure that which cannot be removed. You might as well set up a government to secure the sun rising in the morning.

Well I disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that point. I am bored with arguing it so let's just agree to disagree. There are sufficient others who do understand the concept of unalienable rights that I think we can have a productive discussion on how best to recognize and secure those with new wording that removes a lot of the ability to interpret the Constitution in more than one way.

 

[PratchettFan]

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I don't think that's the case, and I think this is the misconstruction that's led to so much confusion on the issue. 'Inalienable' doesn't mean 'untouchable'. It simply means it's an inherent by-product of volition. And yes, robbing a bank counts. It's obviously not one of the 'certain inalienable rights' that Jefferson would suggest we secure with government, but it IS inalienable. And a clear understanding of this would go a long way toward clearing up the whole "God given" debate.

But....but....if the very definition of inalienable/unalienable as Jefferson used it is that which requires no contribution or participation by any other person, and probably commiting assault, how could robbing a bank be deemed an inalienable right? You are requiring other people to participate by having their property and perhaps their persons violated. You are requiring involuntary contribution of other people. Just as unjust taxation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the people, so is bank robbery.

There are some other issues that fall into a gray area re unalienable rights--say, public nudity. Do we have the right to vacuum in the nude in the privacy of our own home? Sure. That should absolutely be an unalienable right and no business of anybody else.

Should we be able to be nude in public? Most communities would say no purely because of hygiene reasons if nothing else--nobody wants to put their bare butt on the chair where another bare butt was just sitting. That sort of thing.

Should we be able to go to titty bars and strip clubs or adult bookstores or some Vegas shows or view magazines or movies with extra exposure? I think most of us would say yes - UNLESS - the local community determines as their social contract that they don't want such activity in their community and it should be their unalienable right to vote not to have that if they don't want it.

Should we be able to expose our nudity to strangers on the street? Most American culture says that's a no no, makes it illegal, deems it perverted, and even maintain sex offender categories for such things.

So as with many things, there are common sense absolutes, and some things that fall into gray areas involving cultural taboos for good reason.

A pretty good explanation why there is no such thing as a inalienable right.

No. It's a pretty good explanation of why we have social contract that recognizes that all people do not want the same way of life and the need for recognition of the inalienable right of the people to organize themselves into the sorts of societies they wish to have.

I doubt you would even agree with that when it came down to it. If we have the inalienable right to organize into any society we wish, then I can create my own little kingdom if I can get the muscle to back me up. I can instate slavery, turn the women into chattel, treat children as commercial property to be sold to the highest bidder. If you say I must act in a manner in keeping with other law, well that isn't the society me and my henchmen wish to have so what happened to my inalienable right?

 

[PratchettFan]

I think dissolving the states entirely would be the way to go. All citizens of the nation would have the same rights regardless of where they lived. They would live under the same laws with the same courts.

Yeah... put that on you list of things likely to happen after hell freezes over.

Whoa, you've attributed a quote to me that I absolutely did not say. I have NEVER advocated doing away with the states. In fact I am strenuously arguing for the states to regain their lost authority and power and for much more power to be left with the states and local communities.

Yeah. That was me. This is based upon the idea we are scrapping what we have and starting over. That too is on the "after hell freezes over" list.

 

[PratchettFan]

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

You're right. You cannot lose a right that falls within the realm of unalienable right. But you can choose to relinquish some or all of an unalienable right for whatever reason and you can be prevented from exercising an unalienable right. That is the purpose of the Constitution--to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people.

You can't relinquish and inalienable right. It is, by definition, inseparable from you. There is no point in creating a Constitution to secure inalienable rights because you cannot secure that which cannot be removed. You might as well set up a government to secure the sun rising in the morning.

Well I disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that point. I am bored with arguing it so let's just agree to disagree. There are sufficient others who do understand the concept of unalienable rights that I think we can have a productive discussion on how best to recognize and secure those with new wording that removes a lot of the ability to interpret the Constitution in more than one way.

I'm good with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think dissolving the states entirely would be the way to go. All citizens of the nation would have the same rights regardless of where they lived. They would live under the same laws with the same courts.

Yeah... put that on you list of things likely to happen after hell freezes over.

Whoa, you've attributed a quote to me that I absolutely did not say. I have NEVER advocated doing away with the states. In fact I am strenuously arguing for the states to regain their lost authority and power and for much more power to be left with the states and local communities.

Fixed.

 

[dblack]

From Websters:

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

This point there is not that it should not be taken away but that it can't be taken away. There is no right, beyond what happens in your own head, which cannot be taken away and, under given circumstances, aren't taken away. You talk about freedom of action - how does that apply to someone in a max security prison? The right to vote or bear arms - how does that apply to felons? What happens in a real emergency and martial law is declared? We don't live in a philosophical world, we live in one where stuff happens and issues are all in shades of grey.

The concept is sound, and while I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it rationally and with thought, we aren't quite yet on the same page when it comes to unalienable rights. I cannot transfer to you or anybody else my ability to think, believe, create new concepts in my mind, etc. These are all unalienable and, as the Founders saw it, our right to exercise as they are what makes us what we are.

Now if the strong is given power over the weak--the very thing the original Constitution was designed to prevent--the strong can deny me the ability to exercise those unalienable rights or can punish me if I choose to do so. Which is why they proposed a federal government that would be restricted to specific functions among which acknowledges and recognizes the unalienable rights of the people and is given no authority of any kind to interfere with or regulate the rights the people would have. And a government that also recognizes and does not interfere with the right/ability of the people to defend and protect their own rights.

Those who would violate the security of the rights of others, however, will lose their right to act in that way (jail or prison) and/or will be materially penalized (fines, lawsuits) for violating the rights of others. That is how our rights are secured.

You cannot lose an inalienable right. If you can, then it is not inalienable. Which is why I say the word is meaningless. I concede your thoughts are inalienable, but that is only because we have yet to discover how to modify them externally. If we ever do, they will cease to be inalienable. If anyone can deny you the ability to exercise a right, that right is not inalienable.

So really the only word which actually does apply is "right". An adjective to that word is pointless. Either you have a right or you do not. You can give up a right by your behavior, it can be taken from you by the government or by a random person. Rights are not natural, they are not given by any god. Rights are what the society says they are. You can claim you have a right, but if society does not agree then you don't have it.

Historically, the more local the government the more likely it is to infringe upon your rights. A local sheriff is far more likely to deny your rights than the head of the state police, and that person is more likely to infringe than the head of the FBI. Not always, but for the most part this is so. So I still do not get the rationale that restricting the federal government is the way to go when it has been the states which have been the problem.

You're right. You cannot lose a right that falls within the realm of unalienable right. But you can choose to relinquish some or all of an unalienable right for whatever reason and you can be prevented from exercising an unalienable right. That is the purpose of the Constitution--to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people.

You can't relinquish and inalienable right. It is, by definition, inseparable from you. There is no point in creating a Constitution to secure inalienable rights because you cannot secure that which cannot be removed. You might as well set up a government to secure the sun rising in the morning.

Well I disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that point. I am bored with arguing it so let's just agree to disagree. There are sufficient others who do understand the concept of unalienable rights that I think we can have a productive discussion on how best to recognize and secure those with new wording that removes a lot of the ability to interpret the Constitution in more than one way.

Wrestling over definitions does get boring. And it's further frustrated when one party won't at least recognize the other's definition - even if they disagree that it was the intended meaning. I think the real disagreement, when it comes to the definition of 'inalienable' is what it means to 'alienate' a right.

PratchettFan - I hope you'll try to at least comprehend what we're saying, even if you don't think its what Jefferson intended. What we're saying is that 'inalienable' doesn't mean it can't be violated, or temporarily impeded. Obviously other people can temporarily inhibit your freedom. But if you can still exercise a freedom when no one is inhibiting it - that's 'inalienable'. If you can, if you care to understand what we're getting at here, think of it this way: Any "right" that you can exercise if no one else is around is an "inalienable" right. Rights that require the active participation of others aren't. So freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, free will in general, are inalienable capacities of human existence.

In my view, Jefferson was characterizing, in fact limiting, the kinds of rights government should secure - not all rights, but the inalienable rights that we have even if no one else is around. Government should strive allow us to go from that state of perfect freedom, when we're alone, and enter into social interactions retaining as much of that innate freedom as possible.

I *think* I understand the view that PratchettFan and others are arguing for. They seem to be seeing any freedom that can be violated as 'alienable'. And of course, just about any freedom can be violated - certainly by killing a person. From that perspective, there are no such things as inalienable rights. And they find it puzzling that people can insist that some rights are inalienable. But I think they're missing the point of the 'inalienable' descriptor. It's not saying there's anything magical about those rights that prevents them from being violated. It's just saying that they require the bare minimum from others in order to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.