Inalienable Rights Explained

Inalienable rights was (and still is) a concept born and understood during the enlightenment period. The first instances of this came from the concept of "natural rights". Originally, these were considered to be rights that go above and beyond government. While government can constantly revoke these inalienable rights, ultimately, people maintain and keep their rights in order to make sure it is never revoked. But what are the list of "natural rights"? Under John Locke, it was brought down to 3 simple concepts:

1. Inalienable right to life.
2. Inalienable right to liberty.
3. Inalienable right to property.

These were believed to be rights that are effectively granted to you by not only God, but effectively by human reason as well. The theistic belief is simple. God, hath given unto you, the rights to your body. That he grants you life to better your own soul for the betterment others as well. To do this, and to attain the amenities that are required to live a decent life, these rights must be met.

Additionally through merit of human reason you can come to the same conclusion as the theist understanding. You can quantify a society that honors these inalienable rights does, in fact, make a more successful and happy society so long they are upheld. By going to each point, you can easily come to logical conclusions and reach the same understanding which was understood through the enlightenment period.

RIGHT TO LIFE: If you have an inalienable right to life, being that you own your own body. You can quantify through history that when the "body" is not owned by yourself, but by somebody else, brings that individual's life into squalor while it raises the despot to a higher quality of life in turn. Just as a king can only hold so much gold in their coffers and feed their belly and royal servants so much, they ultimately cannot provide the same quality of living or even a moderate fraction of it so long as other people are to be held under the torment of despotic reign. You can quantify it further that the ruler, whoever it may be, may not be fully aware of the details to your life.

So the ruler in all of their hubris, decide to create a justified law, which may or may not make your life worse, depending on circumstance. Of course the king doesn't mean to destroy your life. They simply see a problem, apply a blanket solution, and so if it destroys your life, it is a necessary casualty to your imminent destruction. This seems all good and well, that is until you are put in this position of sacrificing yourself for the good of humanity. Without going too much into detail, to destroy the body of individuals does not result in a better society. It results into a measurably worse society. So not only can you deduce the inalienable right to "life" down to theistic tradition; you can deduce it based on human reason as well.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: What exactly does it mean to have a right to your life, if you are not free to exercise or live a good life? It means nothing if a despotic individual grant you a right to life, only to force you in a cage, revoking the very right to liberty itself. You can quantify that while you are in a cage, an individual is much more useful tilling the fields than they are in a cage. You can measure the field and it's domestic output, in comparison to an empty field because the farmer is in a cage. The only reason why you have a cage to begin with is simple. Only when an individual would gladly revoke anyone's inalienable rights does the community itself possess a right to preserve their inalienable rights. Only when your inalienable right is threatened and revoked can you defend yourself with the use of defense and cages. You can quantify the validity of this inalienable right again not only by human reason, but by theistic tradition as well.

RIGHT TO PROPERTY: This is a very interesting right. Mostly because it was not officially written down in the constitution or bill of rights in the United States. Yet it can be no less true. Just as a government can remove or obfuscate an inalienable right, it ultimately does not make it any less valid. In order to create a conducive and more successful society, people must have the ability to own their own property. Meaning an individual cannot simply walk up to you and take away your property. For how can someone live their life, and therefore liberty, without the amenities that make a life worth living? It is these very amenities, the home, the ground, the tool used to till the ground you settle, the television, the washer, the dryer, the bed, et cetera — it is these amenities that grant people the ability to live a good life.

For what chaotic world would be lived if people simply stole from one another to gain some sort of advantage? How could anybody live any life of consistency, comfort, and focus their life on more complex issues such as self actualization, esteem, love and belonging, safety, if the very physiological needs are therefore revoked? This would reduce us down to a bare subsistence of basic survival instead of something as complex as learning to play an instrument. Therefore, you can deduce by basic human reason, that a better society is made when a right to property is not only respected, but upheld as well.

Ultimately, I have had many a debate with people who do not believe people should have a right to property, or that someone's life is not necessarily theirs; that maybe it is the governments. Ultimately, all of these thoughts that derive against inalienable rights result in a worse society which is quantified completely and accurately through historical, sociological, theistic, philosophic, and just about any other "ism" you can approach from. This is not up for debate, but really, whether or not you are willing to fight for your very rights in order to achieve a higher state of being, of enlightenment. We are to move forward, a free and just world — and to not look back and make the same mistakes our forefathers have made and even sacrificed for. How can we be so quick to destroy the inalienable rights which brings us out of crippling poverty, starvation, and destroyed lives?