The Bill of Rights

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Discuss...and when I say that, I mean WHY you believe them to be rights or priviledges. Maybe some personal views/ expieriances will explain view points better.

[n0Mad]

For the purposes of this discussion, let us say you are Chinese, born in China, and have lived in China all your life. China is not at war with anybody right now. But Chinese law says that you have to give up your bed and sleep on your floor so a soldier can sleep in your bed. Oh, and you have to feed him too. You were late to work in the morning because the soldier took your car and your boss fired you for it. That is all perfectly legal in China. You wanted to complain about it on DGN but the Chinese government says you cannot use "IsleofRhodesEnt", you have to post using your real name. When you click on "Post", your response does not appear for at least 24 hours and when it finally shows up, somebody has changed it to say how much you love China.

Are you okay with any of this? Why or why not?

Chinese law says that everything that happened to you was perfectly legal. Does that feel right? Would you change the laws if you could? What would you change them to? Why do you feel this way?

Based upon your answers, I may be better able to formulate a response as to my views on the US Bill of Rights.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Privileges and inalienable Rights can be taken away or given up. Unalienable Rights can not be. One can not be free without our unalienable Rights. One can not even live.

Lets take the unalienable Right to Life. Without that right.. if it were to become a privilege like you argue for... If someone chose to kill you for what ever whim.. they could and no one could stop them. Murder would be a thing of the past because killing someone would be legal.

I'm sorry but your whole premise is offensive. It's fits right in with thinking of Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot and Hitler. The road your walking leads to nothing but sorrow and death.

[torn asunder]

i know i'm jumping the gun here, but i want to reiterate what was said in another thread.

this can be a passionate topic, please everyone, do your best to keep the discussion civil and respectful ok?

i'm honestly looking forward to this convo - there were some very interesting points made in the other thread, and they got me to thinking/rethinking my own viewpoints!

[candyman]

I will just shorten my answer and say move to whatever country you think will be SO much better than America and stop reaping benefits or a system that you obviously hate so much...because despite you extremely dark outlook there are benefits that are seen and unseen.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Privileges and inalienable Rights can be taken away or given up. Unalienable Rights can not be. One can not be free without our unalienable Rights. One can not even live.

Lets take the unalienable Right to Life. Without that right.. if it were to become a privilege like you argue for... If someone chose to kill you for what ever whim.. they could and no one could stop them. Murder would be a thing of the past because killing someone would be legal.

I'm sorry but your whole premise is offensive. It's fits right in with thinking of Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot and Hitler. The road your walking leads to nothing but sorrow and death.

But the Right to life is taken away all the time and it's a violation of what we are supposed to have as Unalienable Rights. Look at the Death Penalty and Abortion, but you argue for those. I've have my right to liberty violated because a cop got out of the car, and thats his exact phrase "well, I'm already out of the car."

I was not arguing against the Unalienable Rights, but I did call the founders out as being hypocrites when they framed and wrote the Declaration and the origional Bill of Rights, because it didn't apply to everyone, but to WHO they wanted it to apply too.

Your going to come out and call me Hitler because your mis-interpreting the Bill of Rights?

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

I will just shorten my answer and say move to whatever country you think will be SO much better than America and stop reaping benefits or a system that you obviously hate so much...because despite you extremely dark outlook there are benefits that are seen and unseen.

Didn't ask you for that....asked to state your opinion/ beliefs...not to post your snark...please take that elsewhere.

[torn asunder]

Didn't ask you for that....asked to state your opinion/ beliefs...not to post your snark...please take that elsewhere.

don't ask others to take their "snark" elsewhere if you're unable to do the same. people are responding to you the same way in which they're being addressed.

[Enishi]

In every good argument I've seen demolishing the notion of positive rights as an absolute which exists beyond a mutually agreed upon social contract, I also have yet to see the writer justify the notion of negative Unalienable Rights. Why is it that humans have these ABSOLUTE rights and not, say, the animals I like to eat? To me it's still an extension of a mutual agreement of our interdependence as humans/tribe and the type of moral order people want to live in. (I do believe there's a karmic element as well, but that's another matter altogether).

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

But the Right to life is taken away all the time and it's a violation of what we are supposed to have as Unalienable Rights. Look at the Death Penalty and Abortion, but you argue for those. I've have my right to liberty violated because a cop got out of the car, and thats his exact phrase "well, I'm already out of the car."

I was not arguing against the Unalienable Rights, but I did call the founders out as being hypocrites when they framed and wrote the Declaration and the origional Bill of Rights, because it didn't apply to everyone, but to WHO they wanted it to apply too.

Your going to come out and call me Hitler because your mis-interpreting the Bill of Rights?

Where exactly am I mis-interpreting the Bill of Rights? When have I ever argued for Abortion? You do have me on the Death Penalty. I really do beleive that some people need to die so the rest of us can live in peace.

You're not argueing against the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is a declaration of what PRIVILAGES we have as American Citizens

The Constitution is a document that says "Rights", but what it really is happens to be a documentation of our PRIVLEDGES as American Citizens....which is the reason that slaves were not given the same "rights"...because they were not citizens.

and yes, I am comparing your thinking to that of Hitler, Stalin, Mau and Pol Pot. They thought in the terms of Privileges rather than Rights too.

[taysteewonderbunny]

TWB, the grammar nazi's take on it: 'privileges' is misspelled in topic title. I humbly ask that someone please rectify the error.

Also, the preferred word is 'inalienable.' Gaf, I do not know of a formalized distinction between the words. In some cases, the prefix 'un-' is substituted with the prefix 'in-;' in those cases, they are the same meme. 'Inalienable' is preferential to 'unalienable' in English because 'alienable' begins with a long vowel sound that is not a long 'i.' Or so I seem to recall from my linguistics course. You are correct that sometimes 'in-' has a meaning distinct from 'un-,' which means 'not,' but in those cases, 'in-' is a substitute for the meme 'en-' which means "of, with, or into." Since 'enalienable' (sic) is nonsensical, one can correctly deduce that 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean the same thing.

I know that not everyone agrees with this, that 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean the same thing, because the author of this source has drawn a distinction based partly on legislation. HOWEVER, I don't know what 'aliened' (pronounced a-LEENd) is supposed to mean unless not liened or incapable of being liened. If it is the former, that would mean that 'unalienable' means NOT not liened, or, more simply, liened (the more common word is 'loaned'). If it means the latter, why add a second prefix at all? Additionally, this author based a good part of his definition on his inference from two different definitions in different editions of the same dictionary, meanings he assumes to be implicit--this is hardly parallel to the actual etymology of the word.

In defense of my argument that they should NOT be distinct, I offer: Merriam Webster On-line dictionary's definition of inalienable and unalienable.

TWB, the philosopher's take on it: you didn't think it would be that simple, did you? Of course philosophers had to make a mess of it. Just look at all the crap one can find on the subject of 'inalienable' versus 'unalienable' in this Wiki post.

Yet, if I grant that there IS a distinction (and I am somewhat conceding that point), Gaf, please go so far as to give explicit definitions. I can not even so much as agree with you unless I know of what it is you speak. Please note, also, that both words were used in varying copies of the Declaration of Independence, that our founders seemed to vacillate between words, if not definitions. Read about it HERE.

What my opinion is of it all, I will write after some sleep.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

According to Black's Law Dictionary the distiction is minor. Inalienable are things which can not be lawfully transfered or sold. Unalienable are things that can not be taken away under any circumstance.

[phee]

According to Black's Law Dictionary the distiction is minor. Inalienable are things which can not be lawfully transfered or sold. Unalienable are things that can not be taken away under any circumstance.

it would appear that we more often have inalienable... but do not have unalienable

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I know that not everyone agrees with this, that 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean the same thing, because the author of this source has drawn a distinction based partly on legislation. HOWEVER, I don't know what 'aliened' (pronounced a-LEENd) is supposed to mean unless not liened or incapable of being liened. If it is the former, that would mean that 'unalienable' means NOT not liened, or, more simply, liened (the more common word is 'loaned'). If it means the latter, why add a second prefix at all? Additionally, this author based a good part of his definition on his inference from two different definitions in different editions of the same dictionary, meanings he assumes to be implicit--this is hardly parallel to the actual etymology of the word.

a·li·en adj.

1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.

n.

1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law

To transfer (property) to another; alienate.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin aliēnus, from alius, other; see al-¹ in Indo-European roots.]

The legal definition of the word is what we are going for as we are talking about Law. I increased the font size so it was easyer to find.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[taysteewonderbunny]

a·li·en adj.

1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.

n.

1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law

To transfer (property) to another; alienate.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin aliēnus, from alius, other; see al-¹ in Indo-European roots.]

The legal definition of the word is what we are going for as we are talking about Law. I increased the font size so it was easyer to find.

Okay, 'aliened' as I referred to it in my post was pertinent to the distinction drawn exclusively in the source I posted where the author seemed to have coined the word 'a-LIEN-ed' as opposed to 'A-li-en-ed.' Most of my commentary immediately following was facetious griping regarding what I felt to be superfluous coinage. Your definition, above, of 'A-li-en-ed' is fine with me.

I conceded, upon reviewing the Wiki entry I posted, that there may be a distinction drawn between the meanings of 'inalienable' and 'unalienable,' though, grammatically speaking, I would prefer that there not be.

Nonetheless, if it is helpful to you in the ideas that you want to discuss to make such a distinction, I am asking that you please define both 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' briefly and declare which you believe should apply to the Bill of Rights. So, I am not arguing at this point. I am asking for clarification before we proceed.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, but I already did that.

An inalienable Right can be taken away or given up it just can't be sold or transfered.

An unalienable Right is yours and can not be taken away or given up even if you want to.

[taysteewonderbunny]

OK, but I already did that.

An inalienable Right can be taken away or given up it just can't be sold or transfered.

An unalienable Right is yours and can not be taken away or given up even if you want to.

Thank you, you did. I don't know why I didn't catch that. I am sorry for making you repeat yourself.