Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
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?)jpsince *i* had to look it up... perhaps others as well:"inalienable --not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated".
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |