"Inalienable Rights?"

Perhaps this would be better as a forum, as it is a forum discussion from my online course "Logic and Reason," but I was curious to see what all ProU users might have to say about the subject.

The question posted to the forum:

"In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, a careful writer, claims that all men are created equal and that all are endowed with the inalienable right to liberty (among other rights). This raises two questions. First, just what does it mean to claim that all men (people?) are created equal? Is this compatible with the institution of slavery? The second question starts from the observation that we typically jail convicted felons. Moreover, that seems perfectly appropriate. We do not want robbers and murderers running free on our streets. But jailing these people takes away their right to liberty. If the right to liberty is inalienable, as claimed in the Declaration of Independence, how can it be taken away? Please address these two questions."

My answer:

"What does it mean that all men are created equal and that all are endowed with the right to liberty?"

I do not necessarily agree that all men are created equal. Some people are born with disabilities that limit their opportunities in life. It seems more appropriate to say that all who are born are of equal value. To just say "equal" leaves a whole lot of questions. Not everyone is born into prosperity or poverty. We are all born into different circumstances that either hinder or promote personal growth.

So, if we are all born and are all of equal value, then we should all enjoy the same basic rights. This is not compatible at all with the institution of slavery. The institution of slavery assumed that only European immigrants were born of equal value with inalienable rights to liberty. A person who claims to share the values of the Constitution, yet be able to think that "owning" another human being is appropriate, is an extremely hypocritical and ignorant person.

Regarding jailing robbers and murderers, I do not see this as a violation. The "inalienable" rights to liberty are not actually "inalienable," because once a person violates someone else's "inalienable" rights, they forfeit their own. That seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Also, I think the word "inalienable"in regards to any "right" is not accurate. Any right can be taken from a person. A person can walk up to another and kill them. They just took away an "inalienable" right to life.
"Inalienable," means "inviolable." Rights are violated every day.

Perhaps a better word would have been "fundamental" or "inherent."

To be honest, had I a place in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, I would have preferred that it say something like:

"All men and women are created free in the eyes of the creator. Free will is the one gift humans have always possessed, one that cannot by its very nature be taken away."

"What follows is Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence from his Autobiography. A good portion of the text was deleted or changed by the Congressional delegates; these deletions are indicated by brackets (the last two paragraphs, Jefferson's original and Congress's version are presented side by side in Jefferson's text and here); changes made by Congress are also in brackets but are clearly marked. It was very important to Jefferson that he preserve his original document alongside the version eventually signed."

www.wsu.edu/~dee/AMERICA/DECLAR.HTM

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

but when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government & to provide new guards for their future security. such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood."

I must say, I do like his version better. Maybe we need to push to have it replace the current one.