LDS Freedom Forum

...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all people are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign. Some are people of colour, others white. Some male, some female.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

The idea, 2RM, was that the Founders did not think it was their prerogative to assign rights, nor deem the assignation of rights to an institution of government. This is what happens in Mexico; the Supreme Court of that country deems it the protectors of the rights of the people; its theme is "The Constitution grants rights, and we protect the Constitution" thus implying that they are the gatekeepers of rights.

So the Founders attributed the ultimate Lawgiver, God, as the Rightgiver. This means, inherently, that no government power can take away a person's rights given that they did not give them those rights. Anyone who affirms otherwise, would have to acknowledge two things:

That if a government gives rights, they can take them away too.
Government assumes the role of a higher power, essentially replacing God.

The first case already happens in many countries all around the world, with the strength of government varied from place to place in what usually is a hybrid system.
The second case happens rarer; but is par for the course in totalitarian regimes.

But once you get to the first case, it is a LOT easier to decline towards the second case, especially if the first cases' democratic institutions are weakened by unscrupulous rulers.

Thanks for your reply, samizdat, my friend. Given that you think God grants us rights, and we cannot prove God exists, that would imply we cannot prove that unalienable rights exist, either. It becomes a matter of faith, just as belief in God is a matter of faith. At least my idea of privileges enforced by law can be shown to have existence, both as social custom and as writ in legislation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable. Some are people of colour, others white.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

I can't believe you actually believe what you have written.
No one is claiming that peoples circumstances or abilities are equal. It's their human rights that are equal. The fact that we see inequality in the world does not mean it's right or that it should be. But surely you're not claiming the constitution is wrong simply because I'm better looking than you!

You usually write thoughtful and thought provoking posts that encourage interesting discussion. This is not one of those ocassions.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 6:47 amI can't believe you actually believe what you have written.
No one is claiming that peoples circumstances or abilities are equal. It's their human rights that are equal. The fact that we see inequality in the world does not mean it's right or that it should be. But surely you're not claiming the constitution is wrong simply because I'm better looking than you!*

Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 6:47 am You usually write thoughtful and thought provoking posts that encourage interesting discussion. This is not one of those occasions.

Hmmm. Thankyou for that. And, well, I can't pretend I like the conclusion I have arrived at, either. I would much prefer unalienable rights to exist, and obviously so, such that any departure from them by any government would be clear and condemnable immediately. Alas, the best we have in this respect is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which seems, among the various nations, to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

Best wishes, 2RM

*PS. I am sure you are better looking than me! And that that will advantage you and the replication of your genes!

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable. Some are people of colour, others white.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

I think these are valid questions. I would say that the founders were indeed religious and faith filled, and that influenced their view. Many of the first settlers believed they were on a voyage to establish the New Jerusalem, so they were idealists.

Part of that faith that shaped their views is believing in a just God and a better world, that he has placed us here to see how we will treat each other, and God has created and allowed inequalities to exist so we could be tested. So the simple answer for me is, that something could be true, but it's not yet a reality. We are seeking to create a system that treats people fairly and justly.

Sarah wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 9:18 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable. Some are people of colour, others white.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

I would say that the founders were indeed religious and faith filled, and that influenced their view. Many of the first settlers believed they were on a voyage to establish the New Jerusalem, so they were idealists.

Indeed so. And idealists have a certain tendency to get carried away by their ideas. I say this not in criticism (I have been so carried away myself) just as an observation.

Sarah wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 9:18 amPart of that faith that shaped their views is believing in a just God and a better world, that he has placed us here to see how we will treat each other, and God has created and allowed inequalities to exist so we could be tested. So the simple answer for me is, that something could be true, but it's not yet a reality. We are seeking to create a system that treats people fairly and justly.

I would not, and cannot, argue with any of this. A better world, the common good, where all are treated fairly and justly by us all, seems to me to be an outcome devoutly to be desired. If we all did justly, loved mercy, and walked humbly with our God, this life might be considerably improved.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sarah wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 9:18 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable. Some are people of colour, others white.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

I think these are valid questions. I would say that the founders were indeed religious and faith filled, and that influenced their view. Many of the first settlers believed they were on a voyage to establish the New Jerusalem, so they were idealists.

Part of that faith that shaped their views is believing in a just God and a better world, that he has placed us here to see how we will treat each other, and God has created and allowed inequalities to exist so we could be tested. So the simple answer for me is, that something could be true, but it's not yet a reality. We are seeking to create a system that treats people fairly and justly.

I like this, it is true and it shows how the lord works with us. They believed they were going to establish New Jerusalem. They were not wrong in a sense. If they didn’t establish a god fearing society then the natives would have been compelled to chase them off. Without their sacrifice, New Jerusalem could not be established. Yes someone else could have done what they did later, but they will be blessed for what they did then. Our lord is a loving and just god.

King of kings, we are all kings and he is the king of us all

samizdat wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:55 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

The idea, 2RM, was that the Founders did not think it was their prerogative to assign rights, nor deem the assignation of rights to an institution of government. This is what happens in Mexico; the Supreme Court of that country deems it the protectors of the rights of the people; its theme is "The Constitution grants rights, and we protect the Constitution" thus implying that they are the gatekeepers of rights.

So the Founders attributed the ultimate Lawgiver, God, as the Rightgiver. This means, inherently, that no government power can take away a person's rights given that they did not give them those rights. Anyone who affirms otherwise, would have to acknowledge two things:

That if a government gives rights, they can take them away too.
Government assumes the role of a higher power, essentially replacing God.

The first case already happens in many countries all around the world, with the strength of government varied from place to place in what usually is a hybrid system.
The second case happens rarer; but is par for the course in totalitarian regimes.

But once you get to the first case, it is a LOT easier to decline towards the second case, especially if the first cases' democratic institutions are weakened by unscrupulous rulers.

The Constitution does not grant any rights. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to limit government. If a constitution granted rights, it would mean they were granted by men and therefore could be removed by man. This is absolutely not the case at all. These rights are self evident. And anyone that thinks the right of self defense, or the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights, are not self evident, needs some mental help.

As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:31 am
...Our Lord is a loving and just god...

Just so!

Best wishes, 2RM.

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Actually, it makes a good deal of difference. The difference between speculation and fact. And if you consider rights to be self evident and unalienable, what would be your justification for such a view? Given that I have already cited two incidences among many when the outcome has shown that they were far from unalienable, and therefore far from self evident. Furthermore, white European immigrants to the USA certainly didn't agree that the indigenous population had rights, and neither did the black Africans traded into slavery.

Best wishes, 2RM

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 11:02 am

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Actually, it makes a good deal of difference. The difference between speculation and fact. And if you consider rights to be self evident and unalienable, what would be your justification for such a view? Given that I have cited two incidences among many when the outcome has shown that they were far from unalienable, and therefore far from self evident.

Best wishes, 2RM

You are conflating the inalienability of the right itself with the implementation. You cannot judge the existence of rights or their inalienability by outcomes. The fact that someone can violate that right does not mean you gave up that right.

The right to life is inalienable. The fact that someone can kill you doesn't change this. You didn't give up your right to life simply because someone decided to kill you. The founding fathers were attempting to set up a government who's main purpose was to help protect and insure these rights for its citizens. They were not attempting to say that these rights are not routinely violated and so were not rights at all. They were well aware of this fact as it is the entirety of human history. Instead, they were acknowledging the supremacy of these rights and the subservience of this particular government they were creating to them.

That these rights are self-evident is clear to you as well. Do you assert that you have some sort of authority to kill others and assert your will over theirs? If not, then you also acknowledge that this right is self-evident. These rights are shared by all humanity by virtue of their being human and were endowed by our creator, whomever that may be. And you cannot deny a creator, as your very existence is proof that a creator exists. The nature of that creator is open for debate, but not its existence.

Contrast this idea to your view of rights, which is that people have a right to be given the things of others to alleviate an ever changing and subjective idea of suffering. Instead of a system of self-evident rights that state that no one has any authority to molest or interfere with you, it is the idea that people have every right to interfere and molest you as often as they wish if they believe it is for a good cause. And this philosophy always leads to great evil since the securing of these subjective rights requires that you violate the self-evident rights of others.

Serragon wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 11:40 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 11:02 am

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Actually, it makes a good deal of difference. The difference between speculation and fact. And if you consider rights to be self evident and unalienable, what would be your justification for such a view? Given that I have cited two incidences among many when the outcome has shown that they were far from unalienable, and therefore far from self evident.

Best wishes, 2RM

You are conflating the inalienability of the right itself with the implementation. You cannot judge the existence of rights or their inalienability by outcomes. The fact that someone can violate that right does not mean you gave up that right.

Yes, I think I would accept a criticism along such lines. Nevertheless, seems to me that a right established along such thinking would inevitably be subjective, and subject to the vagaries of our psychological outlook. I still await some kind of justification why these allegédly unalienable 'truths' are rights, and are unalienable, and are objective facts about the world.

So, to follow on with your example, suppose I have a right to life. But someone murders me. They have clearly violated my right. So what use is it?

Best wishes, 2RM

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am

samizdat wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:55 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 4:48 am ...to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

Well, it's not self-evident to me. Indeed, when someone claims a self-evident truth, I contrarily tend to think that they have no justification for their point of view.

It is clear to me that all men are not created equal. Some are strong, and some weak. Some are born rich, and others poor. Some handsome, and some ugly. Some good natured, and others malign.

And as for unalienable rights, tell that to the Jews of Auschwitz. Or the Uighurs in China. Such were and are robbed of any rights, so they are clearly not unalienable.

I prefer to think of rights in terms of privileges granted within and among a society, each to each, and enforced with the power of the law.

Best wishes, 2RM

The idea, 2RM, was that the Founders did not think it was their prerogative to assign rights, nor deem the assignation of rights to an institution of government. This is what happens in Mexico; the Supreme Court of that country deems it the protectors of the rights of the people; its theme is "The Constitution grants rights, and we protect the Constitution" thus implying that they are the gatekeepers of rights.

So the Founders attributed the ultimate Lawgiver, God, as the Rightgiver. This means, inherently, that no government power can take away a person's rights given that they did not give them those rights. Anyone who affirms otherwise, would have to acknowledge two things:

That if a government gives rights, they can take them away too.
Government assumes the role of a higher power, essentially replacing God.

The first case already happens in many countries all around the world, with the strength of government varied from place to place in what usually is a hybrid system.
The second case happens rarer; but is par for the course in totalitarian regimes.

But once you get to the first case, it is a LOT easier to decline towards the second case, especially if the first cases' democratic institutions are weakened by unscrupulous rulers.

The Constitution does not grant any rights. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to limit government. If a constitution granted rights, it would mean they were granted by men and therefore could be removed by man. This is absolutely not the case at all. These rights are self evident. And anyone that thinks the right of self defense, or the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights, are not self evident, needs some mental help.

As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Shocker from me to be sure, but you are correct here Fred.

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am Shocker from me to be sure, but you are correct here Fred.

And you are a true gentleman Fred, my friend.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am Shocker from me to be sure, but you are correct here Fred.

So, then, we need to distinguish between what is, and what should be. I am quite happy to think of unalienable in terms of what should be, just not in terms of what is. However, as soon as we discuss things that should be, we are talking morality, which is still ethically contested amongst philosophers. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that our mission, as Christians, is less than to persuade others to our world view, just to spread human rights amongst us all. People will get that, more easily than esoteric, arcane discussions about, say, the nature of the trinity. I am certainly of the view that Christianity and Human Rights are entirely compatible, and if we all lived according to the UN declaration, we would all profit thereby.

Best wishes, 2RM

it doesn't say men are equal, is says their rights are equal.

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 5:38 pm

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am Shocker from me to be sure, but you are correct here Fred.

So, then, we need to distinguish between what is, and what should be. I am quite happy to think of unalienable in terms of what should be, just not in terms of what is. However, as soon as we discuss things that should be, we are talking morality, which is still ethically contested amongst philosophers. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that our mission, as Christians, is less than to persuade others to our world view, just to spread human rights amongst us all. People will get that, more easily than esoteric, arcane discussions about, say, the nature of the trinity. I am certainly of the view that Christianity and Human Rights are entirely compatible, and if we all lived according to the UN declaration, we would all profit thereby.

Best wishes, 2RM

Well, it is not about human rights. And the UN declaration is hardly an answer to anything besides socialism. The most important things in life are not taught at a university.

One must come to understand a few simple truths. Life did not begin at birth. Life does not end at death. Why are we here? And because of free agency, we are in charge of our destination. The universities do not teach any of this. And yet, of the things to learn, what could possibly be more important?

If you could remember what things were like before you were born, this earthly test would not be a test at all. You do get the benefit of some of your past experience. Sometimes this shows in a child prodigy. When a person gets a bright idea about a new innovation that no one has ever heard of before, where did that idea come from? The human body is a very complex machine. It takes us a year just to figure out how to not pee our pants. A machine this marvelous did not happen on accident.

So how do you obtain the knowledge that some people are not even smart enough to look for? The scriptures are a good foundation because no one has proven them wrong in thousands of years. Some things are so simple that many people overlook them. Like "Seek and ye shall find." God is a literal parent. And when one of his children cry out, He hears them. He never takes a person's free will. This is a test. Can you see God? Yes. But first you have to feel Him and then you have to learn to hear Him. How long does this take? Depends on how bad you want it. Jesus fasted for 40 days. Most of us would give up before that. But over a life time, here a little, and there a little, we get answers. Each answer may not be significant on it's own in the beginning. But one day, there are certain things that you know for certain that are not of this world.

I was so frustrated one day as it had snowed 3 feet in one night on my mountain. I didn't have a snow plow yet. I did have two 4 wheel drive trucks but both were stuck in the snow. When I discovered that I was not going to get the second one out without a lot of digging, I cussed out loud and slammed my hands on the steering wheel and said out loud "It is a &!@$# being alone." A voice shouted back at me so loud it scared me. It said "You are never alone." Then I realized I had not heard it with my ears. I was 12 miles from town, six of that was not paved. It took me a while to get my truck out. It was about a month before I dug the other one out. I didn't ask for any help and I did not get any. But I now know that just because I can't see them does not mean they are not there.

You are the first person I even told that to. Thing is, you have to have an open mind. Socialism is bad news. If you pursue it, you will find it. But freedom is a lot better.

I watched rabbits over the years and they operate on instinct. If they get frightened, they run in whatever direction they are already headed. If they run under a truck tire, they get killed. Most of the time they run out in the brush. The rabbit never considers that I will not drive out in the brush after it. A cat and dog will think about these things. A cat knows when I come home I am going to park where I always park. It knows that it can lay a foot away from where I am going and I will not hit it. Cats have agency and the ability to think about things, weigh the choices, and act accordingly. A rabbit never considers anything. Imagine being in a world that Lucifer would save everyone. You might be like a rabbit. Can not sin as there are no choices to make. That is socialism. Once you truly consider freedom, you will see just how evil socialism really is.

Alas, the best we have in this respect is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which seems, among the various nations, to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

You should have just posted this. Would of been more honest.

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 7:28 pm

Alas, the best we have in this respect is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which seems, among the various nations, to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

You should have just posted this. Would of been more honest.

I am still learning from you all about your views, and indeed, about my own. This is the advantage of free speech, that it allows participation in 'the Great Debate' about what we think to be good, and the direction in which we wish our societies to develop.

Best wishes, 2RM.

TheDuke wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 6:29 pm it doesn't say men are equal, is says their rights are equal.

Ummm. Yes it does. It specifically says that 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...' And I think the word men does not exclude women, either.

Best wishes, 2RM

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 19th, 2021, 1:09 am

TheDuke wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 6:29 pm it doesn't say men are equal, is says their rights are equal.

Ummm. Yes it does. It specifically says that 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...' And I think the word men does not exclude women, either.

Best wishes, 2RM

Matthew 19: 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 2:41 pm

Serragon wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 11:40 am

2ndRateMind wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 11:02 am

Fred wrote: ↑January 18th, 2021, 10:38 am As for having proof that God exists makes no difference. The Founders knew that he does because they received visitations from angels. But even that does not matter because the rights are self evident and inalienable (unable to be taken away).

Actually, it makes a good deal of difference. The difference between speculation and fact. And if you consider rights to be self evident and unalienable, what would be your justification for such a view? Given that I have cited two incidences among many when the outcome has shown that they were far from unalienable, and therefore far from self evident.

Best wishes, 2RM

You are conflating the inalienability of the right itself with the implementation. You cannot judge the existence of rights or their inalienability by outcomes. The fact that someone can violate that right does not mean you gave up that right.

Yes, I think I would accept a criticism along such lines. Nevertheless, seems to me that a right established along such thinking would inevitably be subjective, and subject to the vagaries of our psychological outlook. I still await some kind of justification why these allegédly unalienable 'truths' are rights, and are unalienable, and are objective facts about the world.

So, to follow on with your example, suppose I have a right to life. But someone murders me. They have clearly violated my right. So what use is it?

Best wishes, 2RM

All rights are subjective as they are simply abstract ideas. All are arrived at through some sort of reason, be it emotional or rational. And at the base of every ideology or belief is faith in something that can't be proven. So I can't show you objective proof that you have a right to life, as the right only exists as an idea. But I can show you that nearly everyone agrees that these rights are self-evident, including yourself.

You do not believe that I have the right to murder you. You do not believe that I have the right to imprison or enslave you. You believe these things because they are self-evident to you. If you were on an island with another person and had none of the moral understanding you were raised with, you would still feel that it would be wrong for your island mate to take your life or to enslave you. All people feel this way inside as a product if being human.

We can then implement these abstract ideas in our legal and moral codes. This is the value of this right, even though some may choose to violate it. The right itself is the basis for the idea that you were murdered instead of just killed, and it gives authority for others to then violate your same rights in response, which is what we do with our legal system.

This is what makes the idea of negative rights so self-evident. Your right to life does not interfere with anyone else. Your right to liberty does not interfere with anyone else. Your right to the fruit of your labor does not interfere with anyone else. These things are evidently true.

Contrast this with the idea of positive rights, or rights of people to have things. You believe in the right for people to have enough food and resources to live. The problem with this philosophy is that it necessarily interferes with other people without any moral basis for doing so. You cannot guarantee enough food and resources without doing one of two things: Either force that person to provide for themselves or take from others and give to that person. You can see the problem. This particular positive right cannot be self-evident, because there is no way to achieve it without violating rights that truly are self-evident in the process.

Context is everything. Jefferson was not writing an abstract truth manifesto to the world and universe. He and his compatriots were writing as Englishmen and colonists to the English Crown and Parliament regarding already existing rights as Englishmen. citizens and freeholders. In other words, we ought not to ascribe to Jefferson what was not intended.

Contrary to popular modern opinion the Declaration was not a “revolutionary” document. The rights of the colonials, as well as the notion that the Creator was the origin of these rights, were already codified into English law- the English Crown and Parliament were no longer observing these rights and were in fact using the force of government to curtail them. Thus it was they, not the Colonials, who were acting in a “revolutionary” capacity. The Crown was failing to abide by their own law, while the Colonials were fighting to uphold it for themselves as well as their posterity. George Mason observed this when he said “We claim nothing but the liberty and privileges of Englishmen in the same degree, as if we had continued among our brethren in Great Britain.”

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog ... lebrating/

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1825 that he intended the Declaration of Independence to be “an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” Yet, he did not propose the Declaration should “find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of….” The last statement is the clearest articulation of what Jefferson and other members of the founding generation thought of the Declaration. It was a restatement of the rights of Englishmen, modeled in large part by previous works of English and American law.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog ... ependence/

Additionally, Jefferson borrowed language from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Resolves in drafting the Declaration. Mason asserted that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and maintaining happiness and safety.” Jefferson altered this in his original draft to “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” By “equal,” Jefferson meant that all citizens or freeholders are, as Mason wrote, born “equally free and independent” under the law. The barons of England asserted their legal equality with the king in 1100 and 1215. Jefferson was not stating anything new. And Jefferson simply shortened Mason’s language—which he borrowed from John Locke’s 1689 publication Two Treatises on Civil Government¬—to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Everyone understood that Jefferson equated “happiness” with property and safety.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog ... ependence/

The problem is that between the Declaration and us is the French Revolution in which “equality” became an armed doctrine. And “equality” as an armed doctrine, which always ends in dictatorship that kills liberty, has been read back into the Declaration. In the Gettysburg Address Lincoln claimed that the Declaration had brought forth a new nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He lied. The Declaration brought forth no new nation—it announced that the thirteen colonies were rightfully free and independent States. The primary proposition of the Declaration is not equality but that just governments must rest on the consent of the governed, who have a right to alter or abolish them when they become oppressive.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyd ... s-part-ii/

2nd as stated above, context matters, it reads and means equal rights to all English scolars.