Men are not “free to pick and choose” whether our rights are unalienable. If they were, they would be man-granted instead of God-given, and therefore subject to the arbitrary whims of men. I’m sorry you don’t understand this fundamental, self-evident moral, natural law truth upon which the American republic was and is premised. Sadly, you’re not a rarity these days.
“Men are not “free to pick and choose” whether our rights are unalienable. If they were, they would be man-granted instead of God-given, and therefore subject to the arbitrary whims of men. I’m sorry you don’t understand this fundamental, self-evident moral, natural law truth upon which the American republic was and is premised. Sadly, you’re not a rarity these days.”
I do not dispute that rights are God given, nor that they exist whether goverment has been contracted(authorized) to help protect them or not.
The dispute is exacy that, whether or not the Federal goverment specifically has been contracted(authorized) to act to protect theses specific rights within the states.
As can be plainly seen in the Federal Constitution and in our history the Federal goverment has not.
I might also point out among other God given rights is the right take from the earth what you like. I would presume nether of us think it the place of goverment to act to preserve that right. Instead we have ceded this right in favor of anther (sometimes conflicting) right, the right of private property. Which is anther way of saying the right to keep what is yours.
Just because a right is God given doesn’t mean that right is inalienable. Just because a right is inalienable does not mean every goverment is contracted to proactively protect that particular right in any way possible or “necessary”.