Actually I called them wrong. Not sure why it's a huge deal to correct "THE FOUNDING FATHERS" who've been in the ground and worm food for the last 200 years. You've elevated them to demigods, if "THE FOUNDING FATHERS" wanted it, it must be so.
Now to defend my argument rather than just attack your attack.
The basic concept of "inalienable human rights" are kinda naive. They get alienated all the time, when some poor bastard falls in the ocean over the side of a boat, I guarentee you the water doesn't care about his right to life. Liberty? What right to liberty do the nice guys in Guantanamo, pretty sure they're being alienated down there, in more ways than one. Pursuit of happiness, well this one you might be able to defend but only because humanity gets happy in some really wierd ways.
Oh and they are "human rights" before you trot out the "enemy combatants" attack on guantanamo, sorry people don't stop being human just because they're attacking you. Either the rights are totally inalienable or they're not. And since we execute and imprison people all the time, I'm pretty sure it's a definite not.
ah, I see you're problem. you've been completely misguided and uneducated about inalienable human rights. let me correct that for you.
See, 'inalienable human rights' doesn't mean that they can't be ignored or violated. It was obvious to the founding fathers (who are not demigods) that in order for 'inalienable human rights' to be protected, they must be recognized. Now, this also doesn't mean that somebody or some entity of people (note that a body of water is not considered an entity of people or a person, therefore it cannot recognize 'inalienable human rights') will not succeed in violating said human rights. That is why the framers undertook the task of writing a constitution......to remind any government they created that their sole purpose was to protect those human rights.
Now, somewhere along the way, our american culture took several wrong turns, many of which 'we the people' failed to correct our government on. The reasons for that failure are many, but suffice to say that it is our fault, not the governments. 'we the people' apparently couldn't be bothered enough to correct these violations by our creation because they didn't directly affect us, instead affecting our neighbors neighbor, or a friend of someone down the street. 'we the people' apparently felt that we had a constitution, all was right with the world, and if the courts didn't seem fit to correct the wrongs done by our government, then it must be constitutional. well, how fucking wrong were we?
So, today we're left with a tyrannical government who has obtained a monopoly of force to use against it's creator, so now it's the master. It's ignoring 'inalienable human rights' because enough of a majority of folks allow them to do it, for some favorite cause or another. That cause could be fear of 'enemy combatants', fear of people with guns, fear of terrorism, fear of drug users, fear of (insert any other term here). It basically comes down to fear. we the people have allowed our fears to enable our creation to ignore 'inalienable human rights' with little to no fear of retaliation or recrimination.
'We the people' have forgotten or ignored the tenets of our founding documents because of those fears. Freedom isn't free. We the people must remember that. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. We the people must remember that. When the rights of ONE man can be violated with impunity, so can the rights of all. We the people must remember that. Until we the people can remember that and fight for ALL of our rights, Our 'inalienable human rights' can only be removed if 'we the people' surrender them. Until such time, they are only being violated or ignored. That does not mean they don't still exist, it just means they are not being recognized.
So, disillusioned, the choice is up to you. Do you want to continue looking at the founding fathers concepts as 'naive'? Or do you want to understand that human rights exist because we're human, and that governments sole intention, despite its mandate from it's creators, is to attack human rights? and, as a matter of further course of action, continue to fight for the rights of all humans?
