God given rights?

[Craig234]

It's always a dodgy process when man proclaims which rights are God-given. However, that doesn't make the exercise pointless.

However, ya, that process also gets corrupted when demagogues use the phrases like 'God-given rights' when pontificating partisan points.

That's partly how the second amendment becomes one. It just sounds so good some politicans can't help themselves.

We'd do well to look less at what the rights are that are God-given and instead look at what the instructions are to love your fellow man and care for the poor.

Both of which are fiercely fought by those who yell 'God-given rights' the loudest.

They get much of their power by convincing the public of threats and the need to kill, creating hate, and opposing care for the poor, with ideologies such as 'dependency'.

 

[momeNt]

It's always a dodgy process when man proclaims which rights are God-given. However, that doesn't make the exercise pointless.

However, ya, that process also gets corrupted when demagogues use the phrases like 'God-given rights' when pontificating partisan points.

That's partly how the second amendment becomes one. It just sounds so good some politicans can't help themselves.

We'd do well to look less at what the rights are that are God-given and instead look at what the instructions are to love your fellow man and care for the poor.

Both of which are fiercely fought by those who yell 'God-given rights' the loudest.

They get much of their power by convincing the public of threats and the need to kill, creating hate, and opposing care for the poor, with ideologies such as 'dependency'.

The second amendment and helping the needy are offshoots of the core discussion of natural rights.

You are addressing societal goals, not rights. It is a societal goal to be able to help the needy, and obviously to make the process completely moral and not hurtful to anybody it would require a system of completely free and willful exchange in order to realize that goal.

I guess the issue of rights is germane to the topic of helping the needy because just about every society decides at some point that the goal is more important than the natural rights (strictly construed). We tax, which strictly speaking is an involuntary exchange and against any construction of natural right that I know of, in order to realize the goal of helping the needy. We restrict the ownership of a piece of property (a gun) in order to realize a goal of lowering deaths.

Ideally we would be better off truly loving our neighbor and helping the poor, but in the meantime we set up a system that takes the individual love out of it and replaces it with contempt because we are technically having our natural rights violated by being coerced into a societal framework against our will.

As to the second amendment, I don't think it's partisan at all to think of it as a natural right, a gun could be created through the labor of a single man, so under what understanding of natural rights would he not be entitled to that?

 

[werepossum]

Then explain by what mechanism "nature" confers these rights if it isn't through some sort of divine intervention.

Nature doesn't confer these rights; the word "natural" is used as in "inherently of", not as in "from nature". Natural rights are logical constructs based on freedom and self-ownership, rights which are necessary to be a free being. The difference between this and the progressive definition of rights (i.e. what government or society chooses to grant) may seem subtle, but it is actually huge. Natural rights are those logically necessary to be a free being, whereas rights granted by government or society can vary from entitlements to the same rights to no rights at all.

Uhh... your links disagree with what you say. From your Mises link, the first sentence of the 5th paragraph:



Properties are the opposite of axiomatic, they're not self-evident. I'm holding an IPhone in my hand, does this cell phone belong to me (I'm playing a game and just scored the high score), my friend next to me (he purchased it), the cell phone company (friend bought a subsidized phone under contract), the company that wrote the OS (Apple), or the company that wrote the program I'm currently using (Gamemaker 2000)?


Property rights are the opposite of natural rights, they only exist because everybody agreed that is how ownership works. If we change the law tomorrow then tomorrow property ownership changes.

I believe Locke was referring to property as in the right to own the product of one's labor and anything acquired from that work product. It's a principle, and obviously not in and of itself sufficient to completely rule an advanced society, but like all such principles it underlies our society even when not directly visible. Your friend owns his phone, Gamemaker owns the rights to its game, Apple owns the rights to its OS and hardware, and the cellular company has a lien on your friend's phone because it subsidized his phone purchase with its work product. Each party liens its property in return for something he/it values. That isn't possible without property rights.

To build a civilization requires socialism which is the antithesis of rights. Thus no rights are completely absolute, not even G-d-given or natural rights, and the more civilization the fewer rights. This is of course balanced by civilization's greater protection of rights and greater opportunity.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

According to Locke there are three natural rights:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

 

[momeNt]

Uhh... your links disagree with what you say. From your Mises link, the first sentence of the 5th paragraph:



Properties are the opposite of axiomatic, they're not self-evident. I'm holding an IPhone in my hand, does this cell phone belong to me (I'm playing a game and just scored the high score), my friend next to me (he purchased it), the cell phone company (friend bought a subsidized phone under contract), the company that wrote the OS (Apple), or the company that wrote the program I'm currently using (Gamemaker 2000)?


Property rights are the opposite of natural rights, they only exist because everybody agreed that is how ownership works. If we change the law tomorrow then tomorrow property ownership changes.

Sorry missed this post.

Lockean rights are different than Kant. Kant's view on property rights are not axiomatic, but Locke's views on property rights are derived from the axiom of the right to self-ownership.

I posted the links to describe the Kantian view on rights, which are not considered natural rights, but a more civic view on rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe the more interesting question then, is what are "Natural Rights?" Is there any such thing? I find the entire concept nonsensical and unscientific, particularly if we assume there is no "God" to confer such rights. Nature doesn't give a damn about humans and their "rights." Rights are conferred by humans to other humans based upon human ethos which are developed in context of human societies. Ironically, the "God" version makes a lot more sense since it least it has a chance of being true, the exact same likelihood as God actually existing. Since "nature" on its own (without a guiding intelligence) has no intentionality, the entire concept of natural rights absent a deity is absurd.

You can't understand inalienable rights anymore than you can understand the nature of the self as a perfect state because you don't know who you are. No insults are intended by this. My point is to try to explain to you why you always revert to the same default position, that logic and reason are all that exist. You do not see the danger of your condition, the fact that the you you think you are is sees itself as separate and unitary, an island of consciousness in a dead universe. You see only the duality imposed by language and thinking but you can know your true self only by instinct, by the loss of your ego. You do not sense your isolation and loneliness and are satisfied with your life as it is, you are proud, in fact, of your ability to reason. You do not see that thought is fear, comparison, and competition or that you were taught self hate. You do not have access to what you are feeling.

You are not like the Princess and the Pea, who could find no sleep with a pea beneath the 39th mattress of her bed. You do not feel your emotional need. If you can't see the danger you are in you will not be motivated or driven with a need for understanding.

All that I can tell you is what I experienced, that to better know who I am I had to die to whom I am not. None of the things you believe in could satisfy me. I experience irreconcilable grief and could not sleep. Only after I had surrendered to the inevitability of my endless suffering did I fine any relief. I discovered in a blink of an eye the truth that is me, that everything I had ever longed for had always been inside of me. I hadn't known that I was a sun turned inside out wandering around in darkness.

God, Love, the Light, Inalienable Rights, Empathy, Unity, all the big words are the birthrights of your genetic code. You are the universe and your genes are a reflection of it. The Kingdom of Heaven, the Truth, God, whatever words you want to use that can never capture it, are all within you and always have been. You know it if you know it and if you don't you don't.

Anyway, our forefathers knew there is a bit truth that comes built in. It wasn't a religious belief or a matter of faith. It's the same thing you probably experience as a lawyer when you sense what is fair and unfair, what is real justice. It is this desire to manifest on Earth as it is in Heaven, that is the source, I think, of all real struggle and real ambition.

 

[Craig234]

The second amendment and helping the needy are offshoots of the core discussion of natural rights.

You are addressing societal goals, not rights. It is a societal goal to be able to help the needy, and obviously to make the process completely moral and not hurtful to anybody it would require a system of completely free and willful exchange in order to realize that goal.

I guess the issue of rights is germane to the topic of helping the needy because just about every society decides at some point that the goal is more important than the natural rights (strictly construed). We tax, which strictly speaking is an involuntary exchange and against any construction of natural right that I know of, in order to realize the goal of helping the needy.

Sorry, but that's not correct. Taxation is passed by elected representatives, and that election is the point of consent.

We could say you also have the freedom or choice to move to another country if you don't like the taxation here, but I won't go there.

You know what's unnatural? This absolute idea of 'private property'. Why is it one family can own more than 100 million or more of their fellow citizens? Why is it that all land in the US has an 'owner' so that people can't go live on it without the owner's consent? The point is that some balance is needed between the extremes of an extremely high concentration of wealth turning most citizens into wage slaves to the few who own the resources, and too little 'private property ownership' resulting in a poor society.

Your argument all taxation is some violation of people and somehow a bad thing is an extremist ideology and quite unworkable as a practical matter, with no useful place in policy discussion. The question is not whether to tax, but who to tax for how much and what to do with taxes.

We restrict the ownership of a piece of property (a gun) in order to realize a goal of lowering deaths.

Ideally we would be better off truly loving our neighbor and helping the poor, but in the meantime we set up a system that takes the individual love out of it and replaces it with contempt because we are technically having our natural rights violated by being coerced into a societal framework against our will.

Again, that's not correct. Love is expressed through the democratic process when people select policies, and pay for them, which are helpful to others, and where people recognize that there are all kinds of areas, from putting a man on the moon to funding basic medical reserach not otherwise profitable, where the government plays an important role and can get things done better than the private sector or charity.

And again this 'against our will' part is contradicted by our elections. Now, I'm all for election reform that reduces the validity of those elections, but that's a different issue.

As to the second amendment, I don't think it's partisan at all to think of it as a natural right, a gun could be created through the labor of a single man, so under what understanding of natural rights would he not be entitled to that?

You're replacing 'God-given right' with 'natural right', I did not do that. But a couple things.

You mention it can be created by one man's labor - why is that relevant? If two men collaborate to make something, how is that less of a 'natural right'? Or 10,000 men?

Second, what if a single man makes a bunch of pressure cooker bombs? Makes a bunch of Ricin or another chemical weapon? Are all these 'legitimate' to own because he made them?

It's just a bunch of nonsensical parameters around the issues that have no practicality as to what is good for society.

There are very important issues to discuss around political rights and freedoms, but those aren't them.

 

[momeNt]

Sorry, but that's not correct. Taxation is passed by elected representatives, and that election is the point of consent.

We could say you also have the freedom or choice to move to another country if you don't like the taxation here, but I won't go there.

You know what's unnatural? This absolute idea of 'private property'. Why is it one family can own more than 100 million or more of their fellow citizens? Why is it that all land in the US has an 'owner' so that people can't go live on it without the owner's consent? The point is that some balance is needed between the extremes of an extremely high concentration of wealth turning most citizens into wage slaves to the few who own the resources, and too little 'private property ownership' resulting in a poor society.

Your argument all taxation is some violation of people and somehow a bad thing is an extremist ideology and quite unworkable as a practical matter, with no useful place in policy discussion. The question is not whether to tax, but who to tax for how much and what to do with taxes.



Again, that's not correct. Love is expressed through the democratic process when people select policies, and pay for them, which are helpful to others, and where people recognize that there are all kinds of areas, from putting a man on the moon to funding basic medical reserach not otherwise profitable, where the government plays an important role and can get things done better than the private sector or charity.

And again this 'against our will' part is contradicted by our elections. Now, I'm all for election reform that reduces the validity of those elections, but that's a different issue.



You're replacing 'God-given right' with 'natural right', I did not do that. But a couple things.

You mention it can be created by one man's labor - why is that relevant? If two men collaborate to make something, how is that less of a 'natural right'? Or 10,000 men?

Second, what if a single man makes a bunch of pressure cooker bombs? Makes a bunch of Ricin or another chemical weapon? Are all these 'legitimate' to own because he made them?

It's just a bunch of nonsensical parameters around the issues that have no practicality as to what is good for society.

There are very important issues to discuss around political rights and freedoms, but those aren't them.

There are so many things in here to address from the perspective of natural rights that it probably would be too time consuming for me to go into each point.

I understand that you are a highly political person but I don't think this discussion is really about politics, it is about god given and natural rights. Politics and governance is more about societal views and systems of morality.

I think a good starting point, and probably would need to be a separate thread, would be to really analyze how we all feel about governance. Perhaps would be to exchange views on what makes an authority just. Democratically speaking most people agree that a simple majority makes an authority just. An anarchist would feel that a each man is his own authority and no one person or even a group of people should be in authority over anybody else absent consent. Democratically 49% of people could not have consented to the democratic authority but they then become unwillfully subjected to it.

As you can see governance has very little to do with natural rights, but far more to do with views on authority.

 

[Craig234]

There are so many things in here to address from the perspective of natural rights that it probably would be too time consuming for me to go into each point.

I understand that you are a highly political person but I don't think this discussion is really about politics, it is about god given and natural rights. Politics and governance is more about societal views and systems of morality.

I think a good starting point, and probably would need to be a separate thread, would be to really analyze how we all feel about governance. Perhaps would be to exchange views on what makes an authority just. Democratically speaking most people agree that a simple majority makes an authority just. An anarchist would feel that a each man is his own authority and no one person or even a group of people should be in authority over anybody else absent consent. Democratically 49% of people could not have consented to the democratic authority but they then become unwillfully subjected to it.

As you can see governance has very little to do with natural rights, but far more to do with views on authority.

I'd question the relevance of 'natural rights' except as a guiding principle for politics.

When you are captured, tortured and executed by others, where does the protection for your natural rights against that come from? Some sort of societal set of rules. Politics.

These ideologues who base their thinking on things like a man going to claim some land and farm it self sufficiently need to realize they are not dealing with the realities today.

It's a long time since anything like that had pretty much any relevance, and it never really did anyway - the oldest societies were tribes with rules and limited property rights.

Even when there were vast amounts of 'free land' there was a huge societal role in it.

Whatever 'natural rights' you think there are, they're protected by man-made rules.

 

[kia75]

I believe Locke was referring to property as in the right to own the product of one's labor and anything acquired from that work product. It's a principle, and obviously not in and of itself sufficient to completely rule an advanced society, but like all such principles it underlies our society even when not directly visible.

But that makes no sense. Does a slave own the field he plowed? Does the person who fixes my car own my car? Does the Wageslave at Target own the clothes she sells? If you argue that they do... well that sounds suspiciously like communism to me.

Your friend owns his phone, Gamemaker owns the rights to its game, Apple owns the rights to its OS and hardware, and the cellular company has a lien on your friend's phone because it subsidized his phone purchase with its work product. Each party liens its property in return for something he/it values. That isn't possible without property rights.

I'm not saying property rights aren't a good thing. We need them for society to function. I'm saying property rights aren't self-evident inalienable natural rights.

That apple owns the OS of an Iphone isn't self-evident. Ford doesn't own the inside of my car, why does Apple own the inside of my phone? That Game-maker owns the right to its game isn't self-evident. I bought the game Monopoly and used the Battleship to play Sorry. Can I choose to use Mario to play Mortal Kombat?

As for being inalienable, I have a copy of Sir Conan Arthur Doyle's Sherlock Homes book Hound of the Baskervilles on my tablet and the new BBC TV version of it. If IP property laws are inalienable, why is it ok for me to make a copy of the book but not the BBC show?

Natural rights? I believe we're debating the meaning of the word presently but if you mean "rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable" then no, they're not natural rights by that definition.

To build a civilization requires socialism which is the antithesis of rights. Thus no rights are completely absolute, not even G-d-given or natural rights, and the more civilization the fewer rights. This is of course balanced by civilization's greater protection of rights and greater opportunity.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Locke and I will just have to agree to disagree regarding Property rights being a natural right. Under debate you can see that many people, including Thomas Jefferson did not regard property rights as Natural rights.

 

[momeNt]

I'd question the relevance of 'natural rights' except as a guiding principle for politics.

When you are captured, tortured and executed by others, where does the protection for your natural rights against that come from? Some sort of societal set of rules. Politics.

These ideologues who base their thinking on things like a man going to claim some land and farm it self sufficiently need to realize they are not dealing with the realities today.

It's a long time since anything like that had pretty much any relevance, and it never really did anyway - the oldest societies were tribes with rules and limited property rights.

Even when there were vast amounts of 'free land' there was a huge societal role in it.

Whatever 'natural rights' you think there are, they're protected by man-made rules.

You may not be correct about the oldest societies were ones with rules. The oldest code of laws dates from 2100 BCE yet the oldest written language dates from 2900 BCE. The odds that it took 800 years for a law to finally be written in a manner that was preserved is infinitesimally small.

I'm still trying to figure out if this discussion is evolving naturally or you are forcing this to be a discussion about politics instead of philosophy.

 

[momeNt]

To build a civilization requires socialism which is the antithesis of rights. Thus no rights are completely absolute, not even G-d-given or natural rights, and the more civilization the fewer rights. This is of course balanced by civilization's greater protection of rights and greater opportunity.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Can you elaborate on why you think this?

Celtic Ireland had no state or anything you could remotely call a state for a thousand years before the English conquest. It was an anarchist society/civilization with division of labor and technological advancement.

 

[kia75]

Sorry missed this post.

Lockean rights are different than Kant. Kant's view on property rights are not axiomatic, but Locke's views on property rights are derived from the axiom of the right to self-ownership.

I posted the links to describe the Kantian view on rights, which are not considered natural rights, but a more civic view on rights.

Sorry, I mis-read your post. I thought you were arguing that both Kant and Locke though property rights were natural rights.

It looks like not everyone can agree whether Property rights are Natural rights, are there any rights we CAN agree are universally considered Natural?

 

[momeNt]

Sorry, I mis-read your post. I thought you were arguing that both Kant and Locke though property rights were natural rights.

It looks like not everyone can agree whether Property rights are Natural rights, are there any rights we CAN agree are universally considered Natural?

Kant and Locke in freedom vs self-ownership is probably similar enough. They branch out from there, property in Kant is gained through the freedom to enter into a social contract and form a society, which then recognizes a property right. Locke posits self-ownership creating a natural property right. Completely different after the first step, but the first step is fairly similar I think.

 

[Craig234]

You may not be correct about the oldest societies were ones with rules. The oldest code of laws dates from 2100 BCE yet the oldest written language dates from 2900 BCE. The odds that it took 800 years for a law to finally be written in a manner that was preserved is infinitesimally small.

Go back further. As the human race was in tribes without writing, there were implicit rules about cooperation and sharing. Otherwise you get booted or killed.

I'm still trying to figure out if this discussion is evolving naturally or you are forcing this to be a discussion about politics instead of philosophy.

It's evolving naturally because the two are fundamentally intertwined. Consider what I said, when your 'natural rights' are being violated, what protects them?

This is one more reason people need to treat politics more seriously than many do.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, I mis-read your post. I thought you were arguing that both Kant and Locke though property rights were natural rights.

It looks like not everyone can agree whether Property rights are Natural rights, are there any rights we CAN agree are universally considered Natural?

I think people get a misguided desire for finding some 'natural', simple rights that are somehow untainted by all the messy corruption of man's greed.

And I think it's a fool's errand ultimately. All you find in that well is the world of the animal where there are no 'rights', you take and kill as you please.

Man improves on that - even as he also adds 'evil'.

 

[cwjerome]

Can you elaborate on why you think this?

Celtic Ireland had no state or anything you could remotely call a state for a thousand years before the English conquest. It was an anarchist society/civilization with division of labor and technological advancement.

You're trying to say they didn't have a state when the concept of the state didn't really exist. It was a pre-modern society and existed as many did at that time: a patchwork of tribalistic groups. To say that it was anarchist is beyond wrong, it's absurd. There was most definitely rules, law and order, but it was decentralized (and conquered as a result of this, which is a topic from another thread).

 

[momeNt]

Go back further. As the human race was in tribes without writing, there were implicit rules about cooperation and sharing. Otherwise you get booted or killed.



It's evolving naturally because the two are fundamentally intertwined. Consider what I said, when your 'natural rights' are being violated, what protects them?

This is one more reason people need to treat politics more seriously than many do.

As to first, look at Celtic Ireland for examples of freedom to leave tuaths and their "justice" system.

As to your second, they can protect their rights themselves or an outside force can protect them. That force can funded and fielded through involuntary exchanges like taxation and conscription, or it can be provided through other means more free and voluntary. The US thankfully provides these forces just through taxation and not conscription, but from a strictly natural rights perspective, and hence ideologue and anarchist/libertarian, goodwill or paid security type forces and/or militias can provide protection as well.

 

[momeNt]

You're trying to say they didn't have a state when the concept of the state didn't really exist. It was a pre-modern society and existed as many did at that time: a patchwork of tribalistic groups. To say that it was anarchist is beyond wrong, it's absurd. There was most definitely rules, law and order, but it was decentralized (and conquered as a result of this, which is a topic from another thread).

You do not understand what anarchy is. Anarchists have rules, they are just not enforced by any sort of central authority, they have rights that are protected through free exchange.

 

[Craig234]

As to first, look at Celtic Ireland for examples of freedom to leave tuaths and their "justice" system.

I don't need to to know what I said would apply to them as all societies.

As to your second, they can protect their rights themselves or an outside force can protect them. That force can funded and fielded through involuntary exchanges like taxation and conscription, or it can be provided through other means more free and voluntary. The US thankfully provides these forces just through taxation and not conscription, but from a strictly natural rights perspective, and hence ideologue and anarchist/libertarian, goodwill or paid security type forces and/or militias can provide protection as well.

No, the individual cannot practically protect himself from the organized group. And having some "outside force" who will protect him is again a political institution of some sort.

You can't get away from it.

Why don't you point me to these "goodwill... security type forces" historically? Much less "paid security type forces" someone paid to protect you, just to be nice?

 

[Kadarin]

"Rights" are a purely cultural invention. Biology certainly doesn't care about them.

 

[cwjerome]

You do not understand what anarchy is. Anarchists have rules, they are just not enforced by any sort of central authority, they have rights that are protected through free exchange.

Really? Maybe I just don't know whatever your little version is, because there is no one anarchy, there are a dozen types. What I do know is the term is derived from a Greek word meaning roughly "without rulers" but that island certainly had rulers... a bunch of them.

 

[IronWing]

Not really. A lot of pretty smart people have come up with complex philosophical deductions that suggest man has rights derived from his very nature as a human being... natural rights. It seems you belong to the political postmodern school that is generally skeptical of reason, philosophy and "truth."

Just the opposite. I have great respect for reason. Not so much for "truth" derived from philosophy.

 

[cwjerome]

Just the opposite. I have great respect for reason. Not so much for "truth" derived from philosophy.

That's a shame... politics is just an extension of ideas, philosophy. Rejecting those just means you have a "belief system" based in... nothing. It's a random, patchwork of whims and thoughts.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Rights" are a purely cultural invention. Biology certainly doesn't care about them.

You are completely and totally wrong.

Sean Markey
National Geographic News


September 17, 2003

If you expect equal pay for equal work, you're not the only species to have a sense of fair play. Blame evolution.

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.


_ Printer Friendly

Email to a Friend


What's This?
SHARE
DiggStumbleUponReddit

RELATED
Orangutans Show Signs of Culture, Study Says
Ebola Spurs Fears of Looming Ape Extinction
Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says
Chimp Nut-Cracking Site Offers Clues to Early Tool Use
Researcher Sheds Light on Elusive Lemurs

The question of whether human aversion to unfair treatment—now shown by other primates—is an evolved behavior or the result of the cultural influence of large social institutions like religion, governments, and schools, in the case of humans, has intrigued scientists in recent years.

The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.

"It looks like this behavior is evolved … it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

Brosnan, a biology Ph. D. candidate schooled in zoology and psychology at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Living Links Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, said her research was inspired, in part, by studies into human cooperation conducted by Swiss economist Ernst Fehr, who found that people inherently reject unfairness.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree with you 100% here.





Let me quote the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”



The reason we broke free from Britain's Tyranny is because they were trampling on our unalienable rights to drink tea while dressed as Indians or some nonsense. Yet as soon as we get the chance to make our government the first thing we do is place limits on these God-given unalienable rights. Natural rights are a good banner to fly under when you want change but as soon as its time to govern, Right's ahoy.

You could also point out that though the Declaration of Independence declares "all men equal", it clearly didn't mean slaves that were men had those same unalienable rights. Their Life and Liberty was determined by their owner.

The reason it says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable in the DOI, but it becomes a "due process" right in the Constitution is because the Constitution is a real body of law, not a declaration of ideals. In the real world, people don't have the unqualified right to pursue their happiness at the expense of others. That's why we have a government and laws to begin with.