unalienable vs. inalienable

adask |  We can debate whether all of our rights are unalienable, inalienable or merely illusory. But what we can’t easily debate is that The United States of America started with the legal premises that: “We hold these truths [premises] to be self-evident, that 1) all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” and 2) “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . . .” In those two premises we see the basis for the governmental system and nation envisioned by the Founders. In those two premises, we see the basis for America being deemed “the land of the free” and the basis for American exceptionalism.

Every governmental system starts with one or more spiritual and/or political premises. For example, a monarchy is based on the premise/belief that only one man or woman in the country receives his/her rights directly from God and he/she is therefore the only sovereign–all else are subjects. Communism rejects the idea that any individual or individuals can be “sovereign”. Communism is based on the premises that 1) God does not exist; 2) the State is sovereign; and 3) all of the people are, at best, subjects. The United States of America started with the premises that we all received an equal endowment of unalienable Right from God and that government’s primary duty was to secure those God-given, unalienable Rights.

The premises on which any nation is constructed will determine how well that nation prospers and how long it lasts. The premises underlying the Soviet Union led to poverty and national destruction in just a few generations. The premises underlying The United States of America led to prosperity and national longevity and even world preeminence. 

So, when a group of government officers or special interest steals or surreptitiously eliminates the premises on which a nation is built, the result is more than an intellectual debate. The result can be national destruction. Right or wrong, the two premises on which America was built were the “people’s premises” and should only be changed with the people’s knowing consent. However, we live in a society where our fundamental premises have been concealed and virtually denied. In my opinion, as a result of the loss of our memory of our basic premises (unalienable Rights, etc.) we are all worse off as individual men and women; the American dream is dying; our children’s futures are being diminished; and our nation is heading for hard times and possible disintegration. 

I am therefore in favor of restoring the two, original premises on which this nation was built. Other people–fascists and fools, in my opinion–are indifferent to those premises or even opposed to them. Our current government seems dominated by those who believe that might makes right. I disagree with that premise.

The premises are the “rules of the game”. When special interests unilaterally change the rules to suit themselves but don’t inform the people, they “cheat”. The cause a kind of treason. 

I am against that treason and the “Unalienable vs. Inalienable” article was intended to help people recognize those original premises, regain respect for those premises, and hopefully, encourage them to demand a restoration of those premises. 

If you disagree with the premise of “unalienable Rights,” what premise(s) do you think should constitute the foundation for our nation?