Haha, I like how the thread became a discussion on the nature of rights.
I would say that all rights are by definition unalienable. If they are not, then they are not rights.
In my view, defining as them "the things which a democratic society encodes through law" misses the truth by one important step. For a definition of rights as "inherent" to make any sense, I say that they're not grounded in law, but in moral truth. In the way that moral truth changes (or doesn't) from society to society, it is not constant. Didn't mean "inherent" in that sense. But I hoped we'd distinguish that a moral truth can exist without society recognizing it, accepting it, protecting it as true, or even a small section of society (such as a government body) controlling the discourse to forbid recognizing it.
Now, in fair and normal situations, laws are made by assessing the morals of the society they represent and protect, then encoding these so that they can be enforced. But it doesn't always go according to plan, and it hardly ever overlaps 100% with "what laws should exist."
You could probably define "rights" that way: All principles that laws should protect. The fact that "should" differs from "does" forms the basis of my quibble.
Last edited by Cimarron; 12-20-2011 at 07:50 AM.
This is a campaign ad featuring the KKK's slogan "Keep America American"
lol, these are the little nuances people note and fly with when contriving frivolous conspiracies. That's a pretty generic phrase that I could hear any conservative spouting from a barstool (klansman or not).