Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.

Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.

It is utterly amazing how unaware you are.

What, exactly, did I get wrong? Keep in mind that Einstein actually laid out the math that explains this, that I can actually show it to you, and that every single experiment conducted since he first published his theories proves he is right, but feel free to point out what I am unaware of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone.

Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. The proof of that is that, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.

You are going to fall down if you back pedal any faster.

Lets try this again.

You objected to me saying I could grant you the right to step on my lawn.

You said that was not a right but an easement.

You were wrong. An easement is a right.

I called you on it.

You have an issue with admitting you were wrong.

Grow up and lets get back on topic.

I wish you would have expounded on your bolded statement instead of wandering off again.

I never objected to that, I pointed out the proper term. You took offense, and insist that because you can entitle people to step on your lawn, and that you only accept the definition of rights as entitlements, that proves that all rights are entitlements.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.

I did read. You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong. I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them. Can you do that?

Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.

Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?

 

[Asclepias]

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself. You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity. To deny them is ridiculous. For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly. That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

That is a valid point. I think you are wrong that that is what he was doing, but it is actually a valid point.

 

[Asclepias]

The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.

I did read. You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong. I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them. Can you do that?

Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.

Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?

No Quantum you havent. All you have succeeded in doing is sticking your foot in your mouth trying to achieve some kind of pointless victory. Others are earnestly debating trying to work this out.

I already granted you the right to breath. Says so right here in my post. Can you provide the evidence rights exist without man being involved?

 

[Asclepias]

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.

You should really give it up dude. Why are you so clueless? Who said Dblack said anything? Look up at what he quoted. Maybe one day you will learn to breath for a couple of seconds before responding off of emotion.

 

[dblack]

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did read. You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong. I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them. Can you do that?

Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.

Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?

No Quantum you havent. All you have succeeded in doing is sticking your foot in your mouth trying to achieve some kind of pointless victory. Others are earnestly debating trying to work this out.

I already granted you the right to breath. Says so right here in my post. Can you provide the evidence rights exist without man being involved?

I see you still believe you are God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.

You should really give it up dude. Why are you so clueless? Who said Dblack said anything? Look up at what he quoted. Maybe one day you will learn to breath for a couple of seconds before responding off of emotion.

Look at what he said about the quote. All his other posts in the thread. Yet, for some reason, you think the problem is that he can't prove God exists, even though he doesn't believe the rights come from God.

Like I said, you can't, or won't, read.

 

[Asclepias]

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.

There are a couple of problems with it. Lets see...

1. Rights (noun) are defined as:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.

3. That also means in additon that someone would need to be conscience to even think these rights up.

4. Inalienable is defined as:

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.

6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind. If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

7. natural is defined as

not manmade.

 

[Foxfyre]

The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.

How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).

So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding. The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.

 

[Foxfyre]

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment: What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[dblack]

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.

There are a couple of problems with it. Lets see...

1. Rights (noun) are defined as:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.

That's one way to define it. A better characterization, in my view would be:

When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use. -- James A. Sadowsky, S.J., Private Property and Collective Ownership

This is why agreeing on definitions is so vital to the conversation. Even by your definition, the use of entitlement doesn't imply anyone must grant it to them - only that they must not interfere. The key point here, that is that the right is intact even if no one is around to "grant" it.

4. Inalienable is defined as:

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.

Inseparable is a better connotation. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it's inherent to the existence of whatever it's attached to. As long as a human mind is alive, it has free will. Indeed, that's pretty much how we define consciousness, and consider people who are brain-dead, or in an unconscious, vegetative state, to not be fully 'human'.

6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind. If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

Nothing at all.

 

[Listening]

I can't keep up with you guys.

Sorry.

There has been some very good back-and-forth here.

 

[dblack]

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment: What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

 

[beagle9]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her. Now to deny that child it's God given right afterwards, otherwise for it to feel these things in which the child has been given the right to do or to try and take that from the child afterwards would be a sin of a great maginitude, and therefore it would constitute an evil of a great maginitude that shall be delt with come the judgement. It is that we recoginize life itself as a right that has been granted unto us by God as it is written, and also it is by our witness of in these things that are before us, in which we cannot deny or escape from our very own eyes in seeing or from our very own feelings in which are a part of our own unique make up in life that was granted onto us just as well. Where there is not God, then of course there is not life. We are given of many attributes before our awakening, and once we have awaken these attributes come shining like a star that fills the whole room with light upon those whom hold the very miracle of life within their very own arms in witness there of.

After birth it is that the new life is protected in respect to the creator, and also in respect to us being created by the one that has charged us in the protection of this life or in the future protections of his creation that will be needed in accordance with his will upon this earth therefore as it should be.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself. You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity. To deny them is ridiculous. For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly. That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.

Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?

And there you go again. You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate. A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment: What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We might claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.

So what would the difference be? Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it? That is what I believe the Founders intended. If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.

And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.