How can we say we have the right to Life Liberty and Property by default for being Humans, if all over the world these rights are not being upheled, would that not make them alienable?
Descriptive vs. normative. Yes somebody can take your life, but according to a Natural Right-ist, they can't take away your right to life. If you lose your life, your right to life was infringed upon and you were morally wronged.
But if they do take my life, example slavery, then how do I have still have the right to life?
So what you're saying is there's no difference between having a right violated, and not have a right at all?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I am guessing this is the reasoning statists use for taxes, too. How can you have the right to these $1000 dollars if I just took them from you? They're not even yours any more!
Or rather what's the difference, to the salve in question?
Well there might be no difference at all when you add the phrase "to the slave," but that doesn't mean there's actually no difference. "What's the difference between red and green, to a blind person?" See my point?
If someone has a right, that right is logically prior to whether or not it is being respected at the moment. The very concept of rights implies that it is possible for them to be either violated or upheld, and since what we see at any given moment is either one or the other, our observations of human interactions, alone, isn't enough to establish the existence of a right.
This isn't necessarily about natural law, the same goes for a positivistic legal approach as well. If we look at LA in the early 90's and see people running into stores grabbing stereos and TV's, we can't just assume they have a right to do so just because everyone's doing it. Instead, we see that it was a case where nearly everyone happened to be in the wrong. It wasn't the new right.
The answer to your question about our unalienable Rights is in the book titled: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
Albeaver89:How can we say we have the right to Life Liberty and Property by default for being Humans, if all over the world these rights are not being upheled, would that not make them alienable?
So because these "rights" can be violated they are invalid?
What???
Albeaver89: How can we say we have the right to Life Liberty and Property by default for being Humans, if all over the world these rights are not being upheled, would that not make them alienable?
Alienable means transferable. The word inalienable (or unalienable) means non-transferable. The idea of inalienable rights comes from the concept of the "will". You cannot transfer your will to anyone else. There is also the concept of self-ownership, that you have a right in the property of your person. Between this concept and the concept of the will, people derive the idea of inalienable rights. Make of that what you will.