Don't get hung up on the dictionary definition of "inalienable", gem. That's why I put it in quotes.
Locke said "life, liberty and property" when describing our "natural rights" - those with which we are endowed by our Creator and which we enjoy without limit in a state of nature. In society, again, we accept certain limits on these rights, or give definition to them if you prefer, in order to better preserve the greater part of them. These limits, or this definition, come about through the adoption of laws and customs by society.
But, and here's the part ya'll seem to have difficulty with, the idea of the existence of natural rights, which are then constrained by the "social contract", presumes that we start from being endowed with these rights, in a state of nature, without constraint. We make laws to constrain rights, not to create them.
If the laws of society fail to adequately define the constraints, then the presumption must be that they don't exist - that is until society defines them, which it may do as it discovers the failings of its laws from the realization that the rights of one are in conflict with those of another.
In modern times, we have discovered, for example, that use of one's property or exercise of one's liberty can have external effects such as air, water or noise pollution. These things didn't much matter earlier in mankind's history in part because many of the things that generate these externalities simply didn't exist or, in some cases, the population was not dense enough for the effects to create any real problem. But as we discover such problems, we must modify society's laws to provide the constraints necessary to protect the rights of some from the actions of others. So we create zoning laws, anti-pollution laws, noise ordinances and the like.
Hope that helps. |
