Lack of text or a link to (archived) source creates a usability issue: we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR.

Text is useful.

As I wrote in a deeper comment, the post mistakes the concept of & philosophy behind inalienable rights with legal rights.

The Enlightenment Era thinkers who developed these ideas were entirely familiar with governments legally oppressing their people. The most common governments at the time were absolute monarchies justified by divine right.

To challenge unjust governments, they worked on a more rational definition for legitimate authority. They settled on the idea that governments exist for the people & have legitimate authority only when they protect the inalienable liberties & rights of all people. When a government lacks legitimacy, the people have a right to alter it to or replace it with a legitimate one.

So, while a government can suppress inalienable rights, no government can legitimately (ie, should) do so: that would be immoral (and a violation of natural law they claimed). It’s moral & political philosophy concerning legitimacy.

Contrary to the post, people do have inalienable/universal/inherent rights: those inform us whether a government is legitimate. It’s still up to the people to obtain legitimate government.

Rights are a human construct. They don’t exist in nature.

When we fight to construct them, we must fight to keep them. In a representative democracy, our representatives are the ones who are supposed to fight for us. But when they fail, that responsibility falls back to the average, everyday, common person.

The struggle to keep our rights moreso has to do with getting people off the couch to stand up for what they believe in. In an apathetic society glued to their toys and treats, their bread and circuses, it’s that much easier for other humans with wishes to collect their own power to dismantle that of the majority.

It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.

We need amendments to restrict the power over civil rights. Essentially no civil rights law can be removed or superseded by additional laws. And that no laws can be passed to allow exception to this law.

Also we need clear penalties for failing to follow laws. Not just for presidents but any members of any level of political seats. Specific infraction and penalties.

A 3 strike policy. 3 such acts and removal of office followed by a new election in 6 months or a year.

Also laws against aipac and corporate money in politics. Banned. Permanently. No exceptions. No ability to change laws to change this either.

We keep learning that when we don’t have strict laws and strict guidelines for insuring those laws are followed, bad actors will (always) take advantage. And the laws are useless unless they are enforced in an unbiased way.

Also Congress members for states cannot override voted on laws. The people supercede the elected officials whims.

We also need ways to remove people from office during their term.

Lemmy: “SOCIALISM!”

I’m listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?

Lemmy: “FUCK YOU!”

If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?

Lemmy: “GO FUCK YOURSELF!”

Snarky, I know. But I have never once got an answer to those questions. Not once.

(Education is my answer to all of the above. Fight amongst yourselves.)