My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them. Would this be a valid starting point for contention?
yes
Actually, rights remain with one until one dies. Ones ability to exercise one’s rights may be restricted either through due process, as in your criminal example, or through unprovoked aggression by another, but your rights, integral to you by virtue of the nature of Man, are inalienable.
Yours,
Issodhos
I more or less understand your expressed opinion. I do not dispute your right to have that opinion... even though IMO it strains credulity.
At this moment, I have two fundamental difficulties with what you have said. The first and primary issue is that I cannot understand exactly what is the fundamental character of a right. If you (or we) agree that we can, in some circumstances, abridge some portion of another person's inalienable rights, then those rights do not seem inalienable. To me, your explanation of this process seems like a bit a clever sophistry.... wishing to have the cake and eat it also.
My second question would be as to your reference to "the nature of Man" which you apparently cite as the origin of these inalienable rights. Is there any scientific basis for your reference? And if not, why would anyone consider the reference as anything other than a convenient device to "prove" your contentions by assuming the conclusions at the outset of the discussion?
