What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?

by: Stephen Palmer Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

signing declaration independence 300x196 What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?Unalienable.com has the following great definition of unalienable rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.

“By the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.

“The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.

“These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”

In short, unalienable rights are the rights every individual has whether in or out of society.

In other words, if you live alone in the wilderness, do you have an unalienable right to “free” health care? Obviously not.

Do you have an unalienable right to till the ground and produce food, to build a house, to pursue your own happiness? Of course.

Civil rights are rights granted by the State that are not unalienable. Civil rights include such things as the right to drive and the right to vote.

Civil rights are legitimately created (at least as long as they are aligned with Natural Law) by the society to maintain peace, order, and security.

Why It Matters

A person who believes that man’s rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To him or her, all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State.

Without this fundamental understanding, no rights are sacred and unalienable — all rights can be revoked upon a majority vote or dictate.

This is why we hear politicians claiming such things as “health care is a right.”

A person who believes that health care is a right believes that the State can give and take away rights based on a majority vote or the whims of its leaders.

Follow-Up Question: Does taxation encroach upon unalienable rights?

*****************************

2009 04 22 palmer 1131 copy 111x135 custom What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?Stephen Palmer is a book writer for mission-driven leaders, a small business lead generation website design architect and persuasive website copywriter, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the author of Uncommon Sense: A Common Citizen’s Guide to Rebuilding America.

He co-authored the New York Times bestseller Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity, as well as Hub Mentality: Shifting from Business Transactions to Community Interaction.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate and faculty member of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela.

Subscribe to Stephen’s blog and contact him at stephen [at] leadershipwriter [dot] com.

Enjoy These Related Articles:

« | Home | »

One Response to “What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?”

Mike W. Said:

Thanks, Steve.

I wonder, however, if we’re mistaken in calling private property an unalienable right. Hear me out.

According to Locke, all property is given by God for man and is, in a state of nature, common to all. One makes it his own by putting work into it. However, unless there is a state or a set of laws set up to recognize his claim on that property, anyone stronger or more violent can come and take that property. That requires civil recognition of his claim.

I agree that the person makes the property his own by improving in and perhaps that’s the natural portion of it, but Locke argues fairly convincingly that he is limited by the state of nature and natural law in how much he can claim from the common property.

I’ve quoted more extensively and developed the ideas more thoroughly here:

http://www.theidealist.us/2009/03/19/property-to-what-extent/

http://www.theidealist.us/2009/04/03/the-purpose-and-bound-to-property/

http://www.theidealist.us/2009/04/09/land-as-property/

http://www.theidealist.us/2009/04/29/appropriating-more-than-man-has-a-right-to-own/

Just some “out-there” thoughts on property.

Comment made on July 22nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
 

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge