This isn't going to be a popular answer, because many view the *words* of the founding fathers as almost on par with scripture, but....
We don't have truly inalienable rights in the descriptive sense - they only exist in the normative sense. What are rights? They're duties imposed on another actor - when those duties are observed then rights are *conferred*. Rights are not created without someone else first observing their duty. God has no duty to me and cannot confer rights to me - only my fellow human being can do that. My rights to live, liberty, and happiness are not because God is observing his duty, but because my fellow man is. When my fellow man stops observing that duty then I most certainly lose the rights conferred from that duty. My rights are protected by the state through their use of police power. God does not ensure that my rights are upheld, not in this lifetime - and that's the one I'm personally interested in. I have a wife in this life - and I want her rights and my rights to be respected in this life. And this is accomplished by the state through the creation of laws and penalties.
If/when someone fails to observe their duty and infringes upon my rights then the state intervenes and imposes a penalty on the transgressor (and hopefully the threat of this penalty will prevent one from transgressing in the first place). But without a state to protect my rights, it does me no good for those rights to be called "inalienable" - because I can most certainly be alienated from those rights as soon as the contract with my fellow human beings breaks down. God doesn't enter into this equation, there is no contract bebcause there are not two parties involved who can represent themselves plainly.
Excellent post!! I think you would agree that even today, except, for a negligible minority or elite,probably yourself included, the mechanics of what you have postulated are driven by the engines of Scripture. And the transition costs of converting to a secular society have resulted social cataclisms of incredible proportions. So, while I generally agree with you I have to wonder about the wisdom of Toto dissing 'the man behind the curtain'.
It all boils down to: "I'll respect your rights if you respect mine." Enlightened self interest.
I said something like that last year and got hounded by the Libertarians for months.
Not really. Rights accrue to individuals regardless of contracts. If they are simply "duties imposed on another actor", then the actor with the bigger gun does the imposing and that is quite moral according to your statement.
- when those duties are observed then rights are *conferred*.
This is silly. To confer means to give something from a position of authority. An authority that gives can taketh away.
Rights are not created without someone else first observing their duty.
You have the timeline mixed up. Rights come first from God. Duty enters the equation because it is your duty not to violate anothers rights. Doing your duty doesn't get you extra rights, it just gets you in the moral line.
God has no duty to me and cannot confer rights to me - only my fellow human being can do that.
This one is right out of the Communist Manifesto. You can not know what God has or doesn't have for starters. Secondly, if your fellow human can confer rights he can take them away, all quite morally according to your philosophy.
My rights to live, liberty, and happiness are not because God is observing his duty, but because my fellow man is. When my fellow man stops observing that duty then I most certainly lose the rights conferred from that duty.
Your rights to life, liberty and property are dependent on nobody conferring them on you. They may be taken away by immoral acts but that is not the same thing.
My rights are protected by the state through their use of police power.
Governments are instituted to protect rights alright but my rights and those of my family are primarily protected by me.
God does not ensure that my rights are upheld, not in this lifetime - and that's the one I'm personally interested in.
God is not a puppet master, He gave you free will and the ability ensure your own rights are upheld. Be grateful for those wonderful gifts.
I have a wife in this life - and I want her rights and my rights to be respected in this life. And this is accomplished by the state through the creation of laws and penalties.
You put way too much faith in the state amigo. Way too much.
If/when someone fails to observe their duty and infringes upon my rights then the state intervenes and imposes a penalty on the transgressor (and hopefully the threat of this penalty will prevent one from transgressing in the first place). But without a state to protect my rights, it does me no good for those rights to be called "inalienable" - because I can most certainly be alienated from those rights as soon as the contract with my fellow human beings breaks down. God doesn't enter into this equation, there is no contract bebcause there are not two parties involved who can represent themselves plainly.
You don't know the meaning of inalienable. Your rights can be violated but you can't transfer them through American Express. They are yours. The right to Abulafias life is his and his alone.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
I agree with that. But what encourages your fellow human beings to confer rights that are part and parcel of living your life with basic human dignity, even when it is against their self interest? THAT is the question. It comes from overarching moral beliefs. Where do those come from? They come from a priori beliefs. A priori beliefs that are commonly viewed as essential to a civil society, and the will to adhere to them, tend for most to have come from, and the will to adhere to them by, those who are humble before what they consider their "God."
I am a self described near atheist, not so common in America, but common in Europe. I have this feeling that we of my ilk are just freeloading in large part off the sensibilities of those with faith. One can get there otherwise, but it is a far more difficult path.
In short, the still resilient religious faith abroad in the fruited plain is a primary source of America's resiliency and strength. I am glad it still exists. It's waning would be a risky scheme over time. That is my secular practical take of the matter.
And there you have it.
PS: John, I just work through a different intellectual labyrinth to get to the "truth." :)