Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2

The deprivation of life is an intrusion on the inalienable right without which no other right has meaning.

then i guess we differ on a basic premise.

i don't think either are inalienable.
i've no problem with the concept that a murderer has repudiated** her right to life.
(or a burlar his right to liberty)

i'm not sure how i come to that conclusion... could be wrong... perhaps if you could explain *how* you come to your conclusion.

(societies are qualitatively different from the individuals that compose them (analogous to the diff. between an organism and its indiv. cells);
'we' have carved out exception to the 'no killing' with self-defense for the individual; and for societies wrt to warfare....
why not another for particularly heinous crimes?
)


jp

since *i* had to look it up... perhaps others as well:
"inalienable --not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated".
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.