... there are, really, no inalienable rights. The traditional triad of inalienable rights, to which Mr Jefferson was referring, are "Life, Liberty, and Property." But for reasons of slave "property," he was reluctant to use the word, so made up "pursuit of happiness" on the fly. However, the State can deprive any citizen of life, liberty, property, or the ability to pursue happiness if it deems a greater social good can be served. So are the Natural Rights people (of whom Mr Jefferson is definitely one) just blowing smoke?
Well, yes and no. The argument can be made that a criminal condemned to death, for example, is not being deprived of his God-given Right to Life, but only of the use (or "enjoyment" ) of that right. Same for property alienated under Eminent Domain, liberty abridged due to a criminal sentence/military draft, etc. It's a weasel way of trying to say that rights are inalienable, when actually they are enjoyed at the pleasure of the coercive power.
Francis Hutcheson, in A System of Moral Philosophy divided rights into "perfect" rights (the soi-disant inalienable), and "imperfect" rights (those derived from the perfect rights, or that were reasonably to be expected in a civilized society). One of the "imperfect" rights was the Right to Conscience, which may be the only inalienable right people actually have (the State cannot, as yet, control the thinking of its citizens). But that is a perfect example of a right which, while possibly not alienable, can be abridged in its exercise at the pleasure of the State. They can't tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to do with the thoughts.
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read
