Inalienable Rights 2/12/11 Revision

...SC justice Frank Murphy writing in the case at 327 US 1, where he vigorously dissented from the conviction by a military commission of a Japanese general:

The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=137723&page=2

***********************

I have checked into the Constitutions of the following nations. Every one recognizes Inalienable Rights. It is my belief that every nation on Earth officially recognizes these rights in it's Consitution. I have yet to find any counterexamples.

Zimbabwe
Indonesia
India
USA
Russia
People's Republic of China
Nigeria
South Africa
Iran
Saudi Arabia
All EU members
All UN members
North Korea

Original Post:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

United States of America Declaration of Independence

I often see people argue that people do not have Rights unless the government, Constitution or other powerful ad/or legal entity says they do. These people are confused.

Inalienable Rights describes the United States' official moral position. Violating these Rights is immoral, but does not remove the Right. It is consistent with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In fact it is effectively demanded by these religions. From that perspective...what human can morally contradict the rights God has given us?

For example, it is not true that a murder victim in Zimbabwe did not have a Right to Life; it means his Right to life was violated. Members of Abrahamic religions also describe it in this way: the murderer refused to obey God when God told us "thou shalt not kill".

In addition, Inalienable Rights are negative Rights, not positive Rights i.e. people do not have Inalienable Rights to food, shelter, medicine, etc because these things require another person to actively provide these things. Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do not have such a requirement. In negative Rights, a second party can violate them, but no second party is needed to give anyone anything in order for the negative Right to be respected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Thirdly, PEOPLE have Inalienable Rights, not "human beings". When people argue that a fertilized egg "is human" and therefore has such Rights, they show their ignorance. Snot is human too, but neither snot nor a fertilized egg are People. Nor is a fetus an "unborn baby" or "unborn child" any more than it is an "undead corpse". :S

Calling it an "unborn baby" is an attempt to invoke peoples' protective instinct towards babies, but it is no more valid than invoking their fear and disgust of corpses (or the undead for that matter).

The words "baby" and "child" in biology and law refer to post-birth humans.

What's a Person? Traditionally a fetus becomes a Person at birth. In principle intelligent non-human beings are People e.g. dolphins and great apes, or advanced artificial intelligences, or aliens from another solar system... I've also heard that a fetus that could live outside of the womb is considered a Person. I don't know much about that though. This is a complex topic which can be debated endlessly...I would have tried to use less ambiguous language and grammar, but that's what was decided upon by the Founding Fathers and their philosophical inspirations like John Locke.

EDIT - 3/27/10

This topic is explored in this thread:

http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=128414

See also

A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others. Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership."[1] These researchers further assert that Native American collectivism is a myth originating from the first encounters with tribes who, because of their hunting-orientation "did not view land as an important asset", and indeed, did not have a private property system with regards to land. The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans and then made into a reality by the collectivist property rights system forced on Indians by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership#Ownership_Models