CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

Good analysis. Perhaps for the purpose of this discussion we should describe inalienable rights as those abilities of humankind that must not be infringed in order for the people to enjoy all the blessings of liberty. And that would include a Constitutional clause of some sort stating that the federal government will not interfere with the people's ability to organize a society of their choosing so long as such societies do not in fringe on the rights of any others and do not prohibit citizens from removing themselves from such societies as they may choose. That would cover all the sometimes silly arguments about slavery, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

 

[dblack]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

How do you see it as propagandistic? 'Calling' a right inalienable isn't meant to add anything. As I said, it's actually limiting the set of rights we're saying government should concern itself with. It's identifying a subset of possible rights, those that we can freely exercise before entering a social context. This was important for Jefferson, and others at the time, because it distinguished the rights they were concerned with from rights that amounted to grants of power - the 'divine right' of kings to rule over others, for example.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reason we need a word or phrase to use re what we expect the federal government to keep its hands off is that it is essentially impossible/impractical to enumerate every single concept or activity that falls within the general concepts of human liberty.

 

[dcraelin]

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

The founder 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?

.

Their gold initiative was puty on the ballot via their national initiative procedures....I think it works like it does in a number of US states..a group or individual comes up with an idea and then, if they can gather enough signatures attesting support for putting it on the ballot...it is put on the ballot for a vote. There is a group in america advocating such a proposal that I believe was once headed by former Alskan Senator and presidental candidate Mike Gravel.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From each according to his means, to each according to their government approved needs

 

[dblack]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

 

[PratchettFan]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

How do you see it as propagandistic? 'Calling' a right inalienable isn't meant to add anything. As I said, it's actually limiting the set of rights we're saying government should concern itself with. It's identifying a subset of possible rights, those that we can freely exercise before entering a social context. This was important for Jefferson, and others at the time, because it distinguished the rights they were concerned with from rights that amounted to grants of power - the 'divine right' of kings to rule over others, for example.

If it isn't meant to add anything then why add it? Its purpose is the same as calling monarchy the divine rights of kings. It suggests that this is something which is yours without effort. That others have no say in the matter. That is a mistake. In a society rights are not yours because they belong to you, they're yours because the society allows them and it is the responsibility of the citizenry to insure they are allowed. No matter what we may tell ourselves, that is how it actually works.

This is why I don't trust this idea of giving more power to the states. They have a terrible track record when it comes to that. The larger the society agreeing you have a right, the less likely it is those rights will be taken from you.

 

[PratchettFan]

The reason we need a word or phrase to use re what we expect the federal government to keep its hands off is that it is essentially impossible/impractical to enumerate every single concept or activity that falls within the general concepts of human liberty.

Adding a word or phrase won't change that. And I still consider this idea of expecting the federal government to keep its hands off to be destructive.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

Rights don't stand on their own. If you are actually looking to create a new foundation of government then it should be based upon a realistic view of human society, not an ideological fantasy. There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens. Providing services to the citizenry is one of the major purposes of government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

 

[dblack]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

Rights don't stand on their own. If you are actually looking to create a new foundation of government then it should be based upon a realistic view of human society, not an ideological fantasy. There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens. Providing services to the citizenry is one of the major purposes of government.

But do you see any fundamental distinction between those types of "rights"? That's the important piece of this. You're focused on whether the term "right" refers to some that ought to be protect vs something thats is protected, and that's not really the point of what we're talking about.

"There is not right to healthcare, however it is certainly appropriate for the government to insure healthcare is available to its citizens."

Why do you say this? Should there be a 'right to healthcare'? If society decided it should be thus, would there be a right to healthcare? And if so, would you see any difference between that kind of right and a right like freedom of speech? Please try to answer. I'm not trying to 'trap' you, and I'm not playing any kind of rhetorical game here. Just trying to communicate the ideas clearly, because I sense you really don't understand what we're saying.

 

[dblack]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

If they can't put together a jury within a specified time limit your right to the assumption of innocence means that you must be released.

But you are deflecting from the point here. Your right to the presumption of innocence and to have a jury of your peers does require the services of others. If the government wants to prosecute you it must impose service on others in order to uphold your rights.

To allege that is merely "procedural" when the same argument can be made when it comes to denying you your right to free speech or assembly. In order to that the government would have to invoke "procedural" measures.

 

[dblack]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

If they can't put together a jury within a specified time limit your right to the assumption of innocence means that you must be released.

But you are deflecting from the point here. Your right to the presumption of innocence and to have a jury of your peers does require the services of others. If the government wants to prosecute you it must impose service on others in order to uphold your rights.

I'm not deflecting from the point, I'm emphasizing it. The point is, to preserve your inalienable rights all that is required is that you be left alone. That's what distinguishes them from alienable rights, which cannot be exercised without the active participation of others.

To allege that is merely "procedural" when the same argument can be made when it comes to denying you your right to free speech or assembly. In order to that the government would have to invoke "procedural" measures.

Exactly. Due process is a limitation on the power of government to deny you your rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The point is, to preserve your inalienable rights all that is required is that you be left alone. That's what distinguishes them from alienable rights, which cannot be exercised without the active participation of others.

You don't understand the term "alienable". That means that something can be transferred to others. Your right to free speech and a trial by a jury of your peers cannot be transferred therefore they are both inalienable.

Alienable legal definition of Alienable

inalienable legal definition of inalienable

 

[dblack]

The point is, to preserve your inalienable rights all that is required is that you be left alone. That's what distinguishes them from alienable rights, which cannot be exercised without the active participation of others.

You don't understand the term "alienable". That means that something can be transferred to others. You right to free speech and a trial by a jury of your peers cannot be transferred therefore they are both inalienable.

Alienable legal definition of Alienable

inalienable legal definition of inalienable

Yes. The dispute over the meaning of the word is why Foxfyre has suggested we stop using it, in favor of something that more clearly captures what we mean. I trust you've been reading the debate over that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 be bare minimum from others to be preserved. All they require is that others leave you alone.

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

The problem is that there are different kinds of rights. There are human rights that we recognize as decent human beings. There are Constitutional rights that should be inviolable by either the courts or actions of the states such as the right to vote for those who will represent us in the federal government. And there are certain functional legal rights enacted by the states.

Unalienable rights as the Founders saw unalienable righnts are something different from all of these.