Why Prostitution Should Not Be Legal

Note: For those concerned by the title, this post is NOT sexually explicit. It simply covers the issue of prostitution (in very general terms) from the viewpoint of inalienable rights. I do my best to remain discreet and tasteful even when discussing activities that are not.

------------

One of the major problems I have with some of the ideas of Libertarians is that they misunderstand inalienable rights and their application in government and society. This has led to some incorrect views on some major social issues such as recreational drugs, abortion, and prostitution. I’ll be examining some of their claims in coming posts.

In this post, I’ll examine one of the claims of the Libertarians: that prostitution (if voluntary) hurts no one and should be legal. This claim is false on both fronts. Prostitution does in fact cause harm, even when it is voluntary. It is also a violation of inalienable rights and, since government’s highest purpose is the protection of inalienable rights, it should be illegal.

First of all, prostitution violates the inalienable rights of the prostitute. This is true even if the prostitute wants to be a prostitute and wants the specific act with the specific person. As we saw in Part 1 and Part 2 of my inalienable rights series, God, as our Creator, retains rights to us. Since we are the work of His labor, we are not free to do whatever we want with our bodies. A person’s inalienable rights cannot be given up, even by the person himself, since they are really rights that God retains to His creation. For example, we cannot rightfully kill ourselves or sell ourselves into slavery, even if we wish to. Prostitution is, at its heart, a selling of the intimate self. Such a thing is not permissible, nor should it be.

Prostitution also causes physical, emotional, and spiritual harm to both parties involved. It is not a “victimless crime.” Physically, there is great risk of transmitting sexually-transmitted diseases. Many people who wish to legalize prostitution point to countries where it has been made legal and where medical evaluation and treatment are available to lessen this factor. While the precautions taken in these countries are better than nothing, they can, at best, lessen the risk. They cannot take it away completely.

Emotionally, prostitution is also harmful to both parties. To claim otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of sex. Contrary to popular opinion, sex is not simply a physical act. Sex was designed to be a complete merging of a man and a woman in marriage to become physically, emotionally, and spiritually connected on the deepest level. The two become one. Even when used outside the bounds of marriage, sex still connects people. It has been described as “emotional superglue.” During sexual activities, the hormone oxytocin is released from the pituitary gland at the base of the brain. Oxytocin is often referred to as the “cuddle hormone” and it produces feelings of love, satisfaction, and attachment. It is the same hormone released when a mother cuddles and nurses her child that bonds them together. Regardless of whether two people love each other or have a marriage commitment, the same hormone is released when they engage in sexual activities together. In the absence of a committed relationship, the hormone causes only mental and emotional havoc. To have complete strangers engage in such an intimate activity short circuits the way that sex and sexual relationships are designed to work. It leaves people with a disconnect that hinders their ability to really love and bond emotionally in a marriage relationship. It may also produce feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and lack of self-esteem. Prostitution is especially damaging to women, who are more emotionally vulnerable. In essence, prostitution is simply rape that has been agreed to for a price and bears the same emotional consequences.

Another thing to consider is that, if the john is married, prostitution is also a violation of the conjugal rights of his wife. A husband and wife have a covenantal relationship such that (among other things) they have exclusive rights to each other’s sexual acts. Marriage is, by nature, sexually exclusive. It is designed to be a merging of two selves to become one. It is impossible to give yourself wholly to more than one person; each person has only one self to give. In marriage, that self is given to the spouse. Married couples no longer belong only to themselves, but belong equally to each other. Thus, prostitution steals that which rightfully belongs only to the spouse. Prostitution (of either spouse) violates the marriage relationship by attempting to give part of the self (which belongs to the spouse) to another.

Since prostitution violates inalienable rights and in some cases is a violation of conjugal rights, government should protect these rights by making prostitution illegal. However, even if prostitution violated no one’s rights, society has the right to decide that certain activities will not be allowed as long as they are not thereby violating anyone’s inalienable rights (as we saw in Part 3 of the inalienable rights series). The ability to be or use a prostitute is not an inalienable right. At best, it would be an individual liberty (although, as we saw above, it is actually a violation of inalienable rights). Thus, banning prostitution does not violate any inalienable rights. Prostitution has detrimental effects on society (such as the breakup of marriages, the spreading of sexually-transmitted disease, and the devaluation of women). A society is therefore justified in making such activities illegal without having to prove that the activity directly violates someone’s rights.

Thus we see that the arguments of those who wish to legalize prostitution are flawed. Prostitution does indeed cause harm to both the prostitute and those who use her and also brings harm to society. More importantly, however, prostitution violates the inalienable rights of the prostitute and the conjugal rights of any married participant’s spouse. All of these are good and sufficient reasons for making prostitution illegal.

The response of some Libertarians (like Ron Paul) to the issue of prostitution is to “leave it to the states.” That’s the standard Libertarian response to every issue on which they don’t want to take an actual stand. But this is not the proper response. While many issues should be handled at the state level, no government at any level has the right to allow inalienable rights to be violated.

This is an extremely important point that Libertarians have failed to distinguish. They think they are returning to the fundamental concepts of the Founding Fathers, and in some cases they are, but in this case they promote a view that is totally inconsistent with the principles on which this country was founded. Inalienable rights are only inalienable if the person cannot give them up under any circumstance. This is because God holds these rights and has not granted them to mankind. Thus, as the Founding Fathers understood this concept, inalienable rights imply that a person does not have the right to participate in certain activities – those that violate anyone’s inalienable rights (even his own). Since government’s most basic purpose is to protect inalienable rights, it is the duty of all government – federal, state, and local – to make and enforce laws that make violations of inalienable rights illegal. So if prostitution is a violation of inalienable rights (and it is), then no state or federal government has the right to legalize it.

Linked up with WLWW.

Easy Baked Chicken Strips

We love these as a lunch or supper item and they’re super easy. They turn out a little crispy on the outside and moist and tasty inside.

2 Boneless, Skinless Chicken Breasts

2/3 cup Sour Cream
1/2 tsp Worchestershire Sauce
1/2 tsp Lemon Juice (optional)
1/8 tsp Salt (optional)
1-1/2 cups Italian Seasoned Bread Crumbs

Cut the chicken breasts into strips (about 6-8 per breast). In a small bowl, mix sour cream, Worchestershire sauce, lemon juice, and salt. Dip chicken strips in sour cream mixture and then coat in seasoned bread crumbs. Bake at 375^○F for 30 minutes.

Note: Measurements are approximate. I never measure these. You can adjust them to taste.


Linked up with WLWW.

A Biblical View of Alcohol

The subject of alcohol consumption has long been disputed within Christian circles. My purpose here is not to condemn anyone, but to set forth what I believe the Bible says on the subject.

First of all, some background is in order. Alcohol fermentation is a process by which sugars are converted to ethanol (alcohol), usually by yeasts (a type of fungus). Fermentation is an anaerobic process, meaning that it does not require oxygen. Sugary fluids (such as grape juice) left in an enclosed container without refrigeration will naturally ferment. Yeasts often grow on grapes or other fruits and are also found in the air, so they can begin fermentation easily even in fresh products. Once the sugars in the fluid are all converted to alcohol, the fermentation must stop. However, if there are lots of sugars in the fluid, the concentration of alcohol may get so high that it kills the yeasts before the sugars are used up. Therefore, there is a natural limit on the concentration of alcohol that can be achieved naturally through fermentation. In most cases, this limit is about 12% alcohol. Today, some special types of yeasts can be used that survive in higher alcohol concentrations up to about 20%. Higher alcohol concentrations than this are achieved by distillation, in which the alcohol is selectively evaporated, collected, and condensed back into liquid again. The first known instance of alcohol distillation was in the 12th century A.D. Thus, in Bible times, the maximum concentration of alcohol in any alcoholic drink would have been less than 20% and probably more like 12%. Even this concentration may not have been achieved naturally if the substance used in fermentation did not have sufficient amounts of sugars.

The most common alcoholic drink of Bible times was wine. Grapes were plentiful and highly prized in the region and wine was a very common drink. Since refrigeration was unknown in Bible times, all wine that wasn’t freshly squeezed would have begun to ferment. However, the alcohol concentration would have been fairly low in most cases. Only very old wine would have had high enough alcohol content to make getting drunk a realistic possibility. However, the alcohol content of wines could also be reduced or eliminated by boiling, so it would be quite possible for even old wine to have little or no alcohol.

There are several words used in the original Biblical texts to refer to wine. These are the most common Hebrew words translated as “wine” in the Old Testament:

·         Yayin – generic term used to refer to grape juice, either fermented or unfermented

·         Tirosh – freshly squeezed grape juice (unfermented); often translated as “new wine”

·         Shekar – used to refer to fermented beverages (including those not made from grapes) that were very alcoholic; usually translated as “strong drink” or “strong wine”

In the New Testament, the Greek term oinos is the most common term for wine and refers to both fermented and unfermented varieties. The adjective “new” was sometimes added to refer specifically to unfermented wine.

Note: These words can be looked up with a Strong’s concordance (Yayin = H3196, Tirosh = H8492, Shekar = H7941, Oinos = G3631).

Unfermented wine is always considered good to drink and serves as a symbol of blessing in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 27:28, Isaac blesses Jacob with these words: “Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine (tirosh).”

Several other passages indicate specifically that new wine is a blessing.

Deuteronomy 11:13-14:

“And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine (tirosh), and thine oil.”

Jeremiah 31:11-12 it says:

“For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine (tirosh), and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.”

On the other hand, purposeful consumption of highly fermented wine is universally condemned in Scripture, as is being drunk. Proverbs 20:1 says “Wine (yayin) is a mocker, strong drink (shekar) is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Interestingly, the word translated “deceived” in this passage means to stray or be misled into doing wrong. It is also used in passages where it refers to being “ravished” by an adulterous woman. The idea here is of unwisely indulging in a wrongful desire that causes you to sin.

Strong drink is warned against in many passages as causing sin and being unwise.

Isaiah 28:7:

“But they also have erred through wine (yayin), and through strong drink (shekar) are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink (shekar), they are swallowed up of wine (yayin), they are out of the way through strong drink (shekar); they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.”

Proverbs 31:4-5:

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine (yayin); nor for princes strong drink (shekar): Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.”

Proverbs 23:29-35:

“Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine (yayin); they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine (yayin) when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.”

Wine is forbidden to leaders and those dedicated to God such as priests (Leviticus 10:9), Nazarites (Numbers 6:3), kings (Proverbs 31:14), and church leadership (I Timothy 3:3, 3:8).

The only good use given in Scripture for highly fermented wine is medicinal. It may be used as a pain reliever for the very ill and dying or to treat certain ailments. Proverbs 31:6 says: “Give strong drink (shekar) unto him that is ready to perish, and wine (yayin) unto those that be of heavy hearts.” Similarly, Paul tells Timothy (in I Timothy 5:23) to “use a little wine (oinos) for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.” Note that it specifically says “a little” and only for sickness.

The above passages are quite clear in their identification of fermented and unfermented drinks. Unfermented drinks are good while highly fermented ones are not wise to consume and can lead people astray. Note that “highly fermented” in Bible times was very low compared to today’s standards. Modern alcoholic drinks would all fall under the category of “strong drink” according to Biblical usage and most would be far stronger than anything available back then.

There are many passages where “wine” is used generically (yayin or oinos) and it may not be immediately clear whether fermented or unfermented wine is meant. The above clear passages help to clarify such unclear instances.

For example, considering that Jesus was our High Priest and priests were not to drink alcohol, the wine Jesus drank at the Last Supper was undoubtedly unfermented. In fact, Jesus specifically referred to the wine he drank as “fruit of the vine” to indicate that it was unfermented. Also, all leaven (yeast) and leavened products were forbidden during the Passover (Exodus 12:19) since leaven was a symbol of sin. Thus, fermented wine, as a leavened substance, would not have been used by Jesus at a Passover supper. Similarly, the wine made by Jesus at the wedding in Cana was new wine as it was noted for being the “good wine.” Since new wine is what was named as a blessing in Scripture, it was the unfermented new wine that would be considered “good” wine, and it makes sense that Jesus made new wine to bless the marriage.

Another verse that should be mentioned in this discussion is Ephesians 5:18, which says “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” Many people have attempted to use this verse as license to drink alcohol so long as they do not become drunk. However, when you actually pay attention to the purpose of the verse, it becomes clear that this is not permission to indulge. The contrast in this verse is between being filled with alcohol (drunk) and being filled with the Spirit. Since the purpose of being filled with the Spirit is to modify our hearts and behaviors to become more like Christ, the contrast here is between having our behavior and mood modified by alcohol or modified by the Spirit. It’s saying that we should not use alcohol to make ourselves feel better or to change the way we behave; that need should be filled by the Holy Spirit. So how drunk is drunk? Any amount of alcohol taken for the purpose of altering your behavior or mood is contrary to the spirit of this verse.

Other issues to consider with regard to alcohol are the principle of our bodies as temples for God (thus we should avoid substances such as alcohol that may harm them) and the need to avoid anything that may cause our brother to stumble or harm our Christian witness. We are also commanded not to be controlled by anything, so anything addictive should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

In summary, unfermented wine (grape juice) is used widely in the Bible as a symbol of blessing. However, fermented beverages are warned against and should be avoided. Deliberate use of alcohol is considered unwise and very likely to lead to sin. An important thing to note here is that alcohol itself is not sinful. It is an inanimate thing and, as such, is amoral. However, the way that alcohol is used may be sinful. Anything strongly fermented enough to be able to produce alteration of behavior or allow the possibility of being drunk is condemned in Scripture. Alcohol harms the body and can lead to addiction, both of which are also good reasons to avoid it based on Biblical principles. Alcohol was permitted for valid medicinal uses (many of which, however, can now be replaced with less harmful and more effective substances). Nowhere is the idea of social drinking condoned. Consumption of highly fermented beverages (strong drink) for recreational purposes is not permitted. Since all modern alcoholic drinks would easily fall within the Biblical understanding of strong drink, they should not be consumed.

In the end, it is not alcohol that is the evil, but our wayward hearts and wrong desires. We are not to use alcohol (or any other chemical) to alter our mood and behavior. We should seek in every way to be controlled and changed by the Spirit of God, and not by any other thing.

------------

This is not, by any means, a comprehensive discussion of every aspect of the issue of alcohol consumption. It is a brief summary of the main points and conclusions that I have come to in studying this issue. I encourage you to do your own study. May God give you wisdom and understanding as you seek His heart.

Linked up with WLWW and Rising with the Son.

Items to Discuss Before Engagement

When my husband and I first started our relationship, we asked each other a lot of questions by email in order to get to know one another. Actually, in the spirit of full confession, I wrote up a list of questions that I emailed to him after our first date. Not exactly the most romantic overture. But it worked for us because we are both the logical, analytical type and we were both looking for a marriage partner, not just a nebulous romantic relationship. We both answered the questions from our perspective and it gave us a way to check out the important issues to make sure we were compatible before getting too emotionally involved in the relationship. Of course, we talked about many, many other things during our dating relationship, but having answered these initial questions helped make sure we were on the same page from the beginning. And to our great surprise and delight, we found we were very compatible on every item.

While I don’t necessarily recommend that everyone hand a list of questions to their romantic interest right after the first date, I do think that couples should discuss important issues fairly early in the relationship. If dating (or courtship) is for the purpose of finding a spouse (and I believe it is), then it should focus on determining compatibility first, before building emotional attachment.

Here is the slightly modified list of questions I sent Doug (which we jokingly refer to as the “million questions”). I have divided them up by topic for simplicity. They are mostly open ended because the purpose is to encourage discussion of these issues, not simply to provide a checklist. This list assumes that both the man and woman are Christians and want to have a God-honoring relationship (and possibly a marriage). Some of these questions should definitely be addressed early on in the relationship while others can wait until later. This is not a complete list of everything a couple should discuss before becoming engaged, but it serves as a framework for finding out how compatible they are on major issues. Discussing these major issues can help dating couples make wise and informed choices in their relationship. And in the long run, having compatible views on these issues will lead to a stronger, closer marriage.

Romantic Relationships

·         What does a God-honoring dating/courting relationship look like?

·         What kinds of character traits should a man look for in a wife? Or a woman look for in a husband?

·         What topics should (or should not) be discussed by two people who are trying to determine whether or not they are compatible for marriage?

·         What types of situations/behaviors should be off limits before marriage? What physical boundaries are appropriate? Should hand-holding, kissing, cuddling, or other types of physical affection be reserved strictly for marriage (and, if so, which ones)? If you and your girlfriend/boyfriend disagree on these limits, would you still honor his or her standards and abide by them?

·         What romantic relationships have you had and do you think that your relationship(s) maintained Godly purity and integrity? If so, what factors do you think were important to that success? If not, have you taken steps or made decisions to prevent similar problems in the future?

Husbands/Wives

·         What do you see as the role of the husband in a marriage? The role of the wife? Should men and women have different roles in a family? If so, how should they differ?

·         How should a man treat his wife? How should a woman treat her husband?

·         Should the husband be the leader in a marriage relationship? If so, in what areas, and what does that look like?

·         Should a woman submit to her husband? If so, what does that look like?

·         What is the purpose of marriage? What should be the focus of a marriage relationship, and how should couples endeavor to keep that focus?

·         Do you think divorce is ever an option for Christians? If so, in what circumstances? Is remarriage after divorce ever a valid option? If so, in what situations?

Children

·         Are you open to having children? If so, how many children do you want? What do you think about birth control?

·         How should children be raised? How should children be disciplined? How important is it to teach children to work? To give them a good education? To teach them to study and understand the Bible?

·         How should married couples address differences in views on how and what children should be taught?

Family Life

·         What tasks or responsibilities should be designated to the husband? To the wife? To the children?

·         Who should make the final decision if a disagreement arises? How should that decision be made?

·         Should a woman work outside the home? Should that change if/when she has children? Should a wife be expected to make some income after having children or is that the responsibility of the husband? If a wife wants to work outside the home (before or after having children), should she? If so, what types of job situations might be acceptable and what types (if any) are not?

·         What schooling options would you consider for your children? Public school? Private school? Home school? How important is your school preference to you?

·         What should be the role of media (especially entertainment) in family life? How do you decide what is and isn't appropriate to watch or listen to? Are there entertainment choices that are appropriate for adults, but not for children? If so, what criteria should be used to discern that?

Parents and Extended Family

·         What consideration should dating/courting couples give to parental (or other relative) approval and/or concerns?

·         Should a man ask a woman's father before beginning a romantic relationship with her? Before asking her to marry him? After asking her, but before marrying her?

Church

·         What are the major considerations when choosing a church to attend? Should doctrine be the only/most important concern? Should worship style (music, volume, enthusiasm) be an important consideration? What about the qualifications and reputation of the pastor and other leaders? What about programs and opportunities for ministry involvement?

·         How important is church membership? Or church involvement? Is tithing important to you?

·         If a husband and wife disagree on some doctrinal points, how should that be handled when looking for a church home? How should it be handled when raising children?

Are there any other questions that should be included here? What other topics or questions should be discussed before becoming engaged? Comment if you have additional ideas.

Linked up with WLWW, To Love Honor and Vacuum, Wisdom Wednesdays, and The Alabaster Jar.

Inalienable Rights – Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions

If you’re just now joining us, you can read the rest of the inalienable rights series starting here.

------------

In this post, I’ll finish this series by addressing some common misconceptions about inalienable rights. If anyone has further questions, feel free to post them in the comments below. My husband and I are planning to write a book on this topic and welcome any input.

Inalienable vs. Unalienable Rights

I’ve been surprised at the number of posts online that attempt to distinguish between inalienable and unalienable rights. There is no difference. The word inalienable and the word unalienable mean exactly the same thing.

Historically speaking, the idea of a single correct spelling of a word is quite a new phenomenon. Today, English is standardized so that each word has a correct usage and spelling. However, the English language has a long and complicated history, and the process of standardizing words took a long time. Prior to the widespread use of dictionaries, there were often multiple spellings of words that could be considered correct, and people often used the one they preferred.

The prefixes in- and un- both mean “not.” Both indicate the opposite of the root word they are attached to. For instance, we say in-capable and un-attractive, meaning “not capable” and “not attractive,” respectively. There are even some cases where these two prefixes can be used interchangeably (such as inarguable and unarguable) or instances where derivations of the same word use different prefixes (such as uncivil and incivility). Thus unalienable and inalienable mean the same thing: “not able to be alienated.”

Even dictionary.com realizes that these two words have the same meaning. It gives the definition of inalienable as “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” Its definition for unalienable is simply “inalienable.” Both words have the same meaning. This is a case where either prefix may be used. Jefferson used unalienable in the Declaration of Independence so there is historical significance to that spelling. I prefer the term inalienable because it is generally accepted as the more correct spelling.

Alienation of Rights vs. Infringement of Rights

Some people say that government (or some other entity) is taking away our inalienable rights. This is common usage, but is technically incorrect and leads to confusion about the nature of inalienable rights. Since inalienable rights cannot be given up, taken away, or transferred for any reason, it is impossible for government or anyone else to take away a person’s inalienable rights. They will always have their inalienable rights. However, those inalienable rights may not be properly recognized and may be infringed upon. Alienable rights – which cannot be taken away, but may be voluntarily given up or transferred to another person – can also be infringed upon. Violation of rights is referred to in the Declaration of Independence as “abuses and usurpations.”

An infringement or violation of a person’s rights occurs when an entity disregards those rights and acts in violation of them. For example, if someone steals my car (to which I have an alienable right), they have not removed my right to my car. I am still the rightful owner. Until I voluntarily sell or give the car to someone else or abandon it, the car is rightfully mine. If someone steals it, they have infringed upon my right to use my car. They are treating the car as if they had a right to it that they do not have, and they have prevented me from using my car in the way I choose. They have not, however, taken away my right to my car. Only I can do that.

In the case of inalienable rights, I cannot even give up those rights if I wished to. Thus, if someone were to murder me, they would not have removed my right to life, but simply violated it. Similarly, if government were to say that I will be sold as a slave, they would not have thereby taken away my right to liberty, but infringed upon it. My rights to life and liberty will always be mine and cannot be taken away. Infringement of rights is morally wrong. Thus, a just government will always recognize and protect the rights of the people. If government tries to infringe upon the rights of the people, it does not deny the people their rights, it merely violates them and makes itself an invalid government (at least for that action).

This distinction, of having rights violated rather than removed, is important. Inalienable rights cannot be given up or transferred under any circumstances, and alienable rights can only be given up or transferred by the person holding them. If government (or any other entity) can really take away or transfer our rights (whether alienable or inalienable) to another, then they are not really “rights” after all. They are nothing more than privileges, and we hold them only at the whim of government.

Rights vs. Privileges

Many people confuse rights with privileges. Privileges are those specific things which a person does not have an inherent right to do, but is allowed to do. A privilege is granted by permission from an authority and can be restricted or revoked by that same authority. A privilege is usually given to a select group. If a mother gives her child permission to watch television, that is a privilege. No child has a right to watch TV. It is something that may be granted to a child and can be revoked by the parent at any time.

Rights, on the other hand, cannot be taken away from the person who holds them. An inalienable right is something that a person inherently has by virtue of being human. Inalienable rights are thus universal (all people have them) and permanent (cannot be given up or taken away). Alienable rights are not universal, but unlike privileges, they cannot be revoked by another. They can only be voluntarily given up by the one who holds them. While privileges require permission, a person does not need anyone’s permission to exercise his rights.

Of course, people have the inalienable right to liberty, which means they have a right to freely choose their actions within the scope of their rights. They have the right to choose to do anything they have a right or privilege to do, without coercion. Remember, however, that the right to liberty is different than an individual liberty. Individual liberties are possible things that a person can do and each one is an alienable right, meaning that it can be voluntarily given up. When no law has made an action illegal and the action does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, the action falls within the realm of possible free choices that can be made under the right to liberty. However, when a law is made within a representative government that limits an action (and as long as that law does not violate anyone’s inalienable rights), that action has been freely given up by the person (through his representatives) and is no longer something that he has a right to freely choose to do. When an action is limited in this way and government grants permission for some people to engage in that action, it becomes a privilege.

So, for example, the choice to drive a car on public roads (which is an alienable right) has been freely given up by the citizens of the United States through laws made by their representatives. Government then grants the privilege of driving on public roads to select individuals (those who have a driver’s license) under certain circumstances (when there is car insurance on the vehicle and traffic rules are obeyed).

In summary, an inalienable right, since it cannot be given up or transferred for any reason, can never be rightfully limited by government or made a privilege. Alienable rights may be given up or transferred by the one who holds them, but cannot be removed by any other entity.

------------ 

That wraps up the inalienable rights series. However, that is certainly not the last I will write on the subject. Stay tuned for a number of posts on the applications of these concepts to various issues. In coming weeks, I will be covering the inalienable rights perspective on abortion, marriage, prostitution, illegal drugs, Supreme Court cases, current events, and many others.

The Inalienable Rights Series
Part 1: What are Inalienable Rights?
Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights
Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government
Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed
Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions