[QUOTE=nokhor]
Yes they're formally inaniable, this means that the society recognices that this rights cannot be taken away from the person. Now materially it seems a little different sadly, and North Korea is not alone, this happens in all the world.i think the Rights of Man comes from the same place that Divine Rights of the monarch came from which is the consent of society. people get together and say wouldn't it be nice if we had this, and they get enough people to agree and it becomes a Right. otherwise if the Rights of Man were truly inalienable, then places like north korea couldn't possibly exist, but they do exist.
Well I think that Paine talked about what it should be and not what it's. In any cas if you want to see if those rights are imprescriptible or inalienable for certain the look at all the movements that there exist to reafirm those rights. In the case of USA, I really don't know why they'll abandon such rights to privacy only for the sake of some abstract danger...I'll never do that...and the Rights of Man even in places where the doctrine has been established for centuries like the u.s. are always in a constant if subtle state of flux. most americans agreed it was ok to give up some of their personal freedoms such as in airline searches and the stuff in the patriot act because they felt the goverment needed to assume more powers to protect their security. and with katrina, the authorities were telling people they could not bring their firearms with them when they were being evacuated. so i don't think the "Rights" are as permanent or stable as Paine might have wished.
Bookmarks