And I've stated my position that I see no evidence for the availability of human inalienable natural rights that have always been with us and will always be - I pointed out that those rights and what's considered a right changes with historical, geographical and cultural context - And that's why there are no universal natural rights, unless you want to argue that your personal opinion on what constitutes those rights is objectively correct and all others are wrong. I'm sorry for the off topic - But I think using the legal document of the UDHR (universal declaration for human rights) approved by the UN is useful because it insists these rights are given to us without need for an intermediate authority.
Quote:I am sorry if my post was unclear. I was not suggesting that the U.S. was a role model. I was merely disputing your claim that there are rights that are inalienable or irrevocable, in the normal sense of these terms. If you mean to be using terms in some special legal sense, please give me links to the definitions you have in mind, as I understand English better than legalese.Too many legal theories to just point out a predominant one - B sides, my legalese "English" sucks - I was just saying that it's rational to distinguish between losing rights completely and restricting them for the common good without completely losing them - I don' think you need a law degree to understand that.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you