What Human Rights?

[Pyrrho]

Note too that inalienable does not mean irrevocable. The state will not enforce a contract of slavery, for example, (i.e. the right to liberty is inalienable), but it can, of course, revoke your right to liberty by putting you in prison and forcing you to work.

Also note that legal rights and rights-as-social-constructs certainly do exist, and have a profound social and cultural impact. Saying they do not exist "objectively" is not really relevant. Yes, we could choose to not construct, for example, a right to liberty, and it has been actually true in the past that societies have existed for many centuries without constructing any such right, but the fact remains that in most Western nations, we do in fact choose to construct (albeit imperfectly) a right to liberty.

I was going to say that the only way that might be correct is in some legal sense of the words rather than in their ordinary sense, but as you later say you are not a lawyer, I will presume that you mean ordinary usage.  If you mean some esoteric legal concept, please provide links to definitions of the terms.

To start, we need the definitions of the relevant words:

inalienable


adjective
Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

irrevocable

adjective
Not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


If the state has the right to lock you up in prison, then your right to liberty is neither inalienable nor irrevocable.  Both words entail that it cannot be taken away from you.


Of course, the OP expressly stated that it is not legal rights that are in question, but natural rights.  But I will post a reply to him regarding that.