Do people even know what ‘inalienable‘ means?
Have we thought about it lately?
My understanding is there exist rights embodied by individuals that cannot be ceded even by the individuals themselves. Not that one should not, mind you, but that one cannot alienate one’s self from them; one cannot give one’s life away, nor sell one’s freedom, nor relinquish one’s discovery of happiness on, and in, one’s own terms. Nor can anyone else, in one’s name or otherwise. It means
This is the view expressed in our DoI. Expressing this understanding seems important to do in the historical moment. It might be fundamental to our intuitions about mental health, fairness, authority—just all manner of considerations.
It sounds positively anarchic until one sees the responsibilities underlying it all. We are stuck with our rights.