17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 177:
Line 177: − == “Inalienable” vs. “Unalienable” == − Often, the word “inalienable” is used in place of “unalienable,” when describing God-given rights. This seems to be an acceptable practice, going back several centuries. The context usually indicates that the same rights are being discussed. For linguistic purists, however, inalienable means ''not able to be transferred or forfeit without the permission of the individual possessing said rights''. Unalienable means ''not able to be transferred or surrendered under any circumstance''. − − Under this formulation, inalienable rights may be surrendered in whole or in part, and either permanently or for a limited period of time, by the person endowed with such rights. Unalienable rights, on the other hand, are those contemplated by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They cannot be forfeit under any circumstance, inasmuch as no human has the authority to override what God has already established. Unalienable rights belong to each of us, and to all of us, for as long as we live. For better or worse, we’re stuck with them.
→“Inalienable” vs. “Unalienable”: drop speculative section (see Garner Dictionary of Modern American usage)
Not surprisingly, the majority of governments that promote “human rights” are socialist- or communist-based, and are usually ruled by a dictator, an oligarchy, or a military junta. In these regimes, the concept of “human rights” gives the government wide latitude to control the population by granting certain freedoms and withholding others. Unlike the government instituted by America’s forefathers, governments which promote “human rights” typically are not established to protect the freedoms of the People, but to control and exploit the population, under the guise of providing them with “security.”
Not surprisingly, the majority of governments that promote “human rights” are socialist- or communist-based, and are usually ruled by a dictator, an oligarchy, or a military junta. In these regimes, the concept of “human rights” gives the government wide latitude to control the population by granting certain freedoms and withholding others. Unlike the government instituted by America’s forefathers, governments which promote “human rights” typically are not established to protect the freedoms of the People, but to control and exploit the population, under the guise of providing them with “security.”
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category: Law]]
[[Category: Law]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]
[[Category: Political Terms]]