I had to read this sentence (below or read it on the web, scroll down to perception’s oh-so-perceptive remark) twice before commenting on it: once to stare and shake my head and once to snort. The statement appears on a forum in a discussion about the difference between “inalienable” and unalienable” rights. Yes, there is a difference. A big difference. And one that is slipping out of our awareness and many of our dictionaries. An Orwellian slippage, as our “educators” and others educate the intelligence, will to learn and even the ability to learn right out of us. Dictionaries do not always show us the best or right way to define something, they often reveal to us mere common usage of terms. They do not often point out how errant such usage may be. I learned that lesson long ago and tend to take published “facts” with a large grain of salt. (Scroll down for more on this difference.)

Altruism means nothing without the means to enforce it. — Quoted from the web.

Now there are many statements on that forum with which I could argue if I had the time and energy for it. Which I don’t. I can tell from what I read how pointless such discussion would be. Few of those posting understood the subject they were discussing. Not understanding the subject didn’t stop the others, though. Same old, same old. A page to make you yawn. But the sentence I quoted above really stopped me. What the heck is he or she even trying to say? (Scroll down that forum page to read the whole reply by “perception”. How apt. Good grief.)

And the best part? The reply in which the replier said “good point; perception!” I kid you not. Good. Point. What point might that be, I ask you? Methinks “perception” needs to choose a new handle. Lord, have mercy.

And if you’re still wondering about the difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable”, here it is. “Inalienable” rights are rights that are derived from social contracts, governments and the like. “Unalienable” rights are those which all human beings have; are not derived from any human or group of humans; are endowed upon all humans by their Creator, the Lord, God; and cannot be taken away. Inalienable rights are legal rights and depend upon law, as in civil law. Unalienable rights depend upon God and every human who has ever existed, exists now, or ever will exist has these unalienable rights which no one can take away from them. It is simply not possible to take these rights away. You can throw someone in jail and take away his physical freedom but you simply cannot take away his right to freedom. Violate it, yes. Eliminate it, no. You simply don’t have that kind of power. No human does. No human.

So, as you can see, words matter. Meanings matter. I don’t care how many people you find that will claim that “unalienable” and “inalienable” are synonymous, they are wrong. They are either wrong on purpose (generally in an effort to deny the existence or relevance of God) or wrong out of ignorance (products of our “educational” system). But wrong they are, nonetheless.

Read more about it — The Unalienable Right of Property: Its Foundation, Erosion and Restoration. More sources are available on the web, but be prepared to sift through a lot of rubbish along the way. Peace be with you.