Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

I already answered that. Go back and read. Only your question is bogus and immaterial.

Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?

I was mocking you. Remember that one?

In other words, you lied.

Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?

 

[Asclepias]

There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.

Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.

If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to?

Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.

For example.....

We die before we want to because.......

 

[Asclepias]

Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?

I was mocking you. Remember that one?

In other words, you lied.

Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?

No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.

Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.

If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to?

Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.

If this was a court I would object to the judge by saying asked and answered, and the judge wold rule sustained.

Since it isn't, I will simply tell you again to read the thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was mocking you. Remember that one?

In other words, you lied.

Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?

No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?

They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.

 

[Asclepias]

There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.

Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.

If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to?

Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.

If this was a court I would object to the judge by saying asked and answered, and the judge wold rule sustained.

Since it isn't, I will simply tell you again to read the thread.

IOW you dont have an answer?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now in response to the substance: Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others



Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better: "What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.

To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something new—or should I say old?—the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law. The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or nature, if you prefer) and man: wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment. The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.

Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universally—by all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them. Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction. Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man. In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, the entitlements of man; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men by man.

Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence. From murder to involuntary servitude proper: these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human. The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners. The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.

Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it? Does it makes sense to you?

I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.

In what respect, exactly? I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible. I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute means that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you? That's where garnylove is confused. There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof. Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover. What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.

Most importantly, natural law is the Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature. That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through: from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.

In any event, my next post does precisely that: merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.

The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.

In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .

There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep. The real action's somewhere else.

 

[Asclepias]

In other words, you lied.

Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?

No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?

They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.

Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too

Just an FYI, I was mocking you....

 

[Asclepias]

I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.

In what respect, exactly? I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible. I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute means that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you? That's where garnylove is confused. There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof. Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover. What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.

Most importantly, natural law is the Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature. That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through: from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.

In any event, my next post does precisely that: merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.

The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.

In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .

There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep. The real action's somewhere else.

Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences? Real talk you sound like you have no friends. Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?

They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.

Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too

Just an FYI, I was mocking you....

Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules. It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.

 

[Asclepias]

They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.

Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too

Just an FYI, I was mocking you....

Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules. It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.

^^^ That was a sad bluff.
You should report me then if I edited it. Go ahead because we both know it is what you said.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.

In what respect, exactly? I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible. I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute means that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you? That's where garnylove is confused. There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof. Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover. What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.

Most importantly, natural law is the Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature. That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through: from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.

In any event, my next post does precisely that: merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.

The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.

In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .

There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep. The real action's somewhere else.

Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences? Real talk you sound like you have no friends. Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?

Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated. Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.

 

[Asclepias]

In what respect, exactly? I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible. I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute means that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you? That's where garnylove is confused. There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof. Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover. What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.

Most importantly, natural law is the Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature. That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through: from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.

In any event, my next post does precisely that: merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.

The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.

In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .

There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep. The real action's somewhere else.

Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences? Real talk you sound like you have no friends. Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

 

[beagle9]

This has become a game of spin, spin, and more spin by some here, and it is best not to get caught up in it really. I think that it becomes to much wasted time, yet wait a minute, hmmm it also sets the stage and/or creates a platform for people to show others their wrong on some things in life. So when this happens, and if they don't learn anything themselves, then maybe someone else will. Hey it's all good then.

Now if the person or persons being stubborn are reluctant to admit to their wrong in life, and even when they have been proven wrong on the subject matter time and time again, then they shall live in confusion instead of we the people who know better about these things.

Now here they are refusing to join us in our right because they make everything as a game of who can confuse the most within their lives by their own choosing. They see it and live it in this way, although it's really sad to see this, but then again it's also a possible way to get the truth out to others in life also.

Otherwise what I mean is that if they (the ones being ignorant or are just acting ignorant), do want to be used as bait in order for the real scholars to get the job done with more ease in life, then so be it.

 

[Asclepias]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?

Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated. Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

 

[FA_Q2]

The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?

Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated. Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

 

[dilloduck]

Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated. Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences? Real talk you sound like you have no friends. Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute. You've just conceded that they are absolute.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If not, then let me ask you this: What would constitute proof for you?

Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.

If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .

In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence. But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .

The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.

Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

Nonsense. The people who are confused are in a constant state of confusion on all topics, lower the bar for them? Frigging communists.