I dont think there is really such a thing as an inalienable right. it is just a custom {tcaci} that dictates such a right, and a custom could be regarded as a type of rule.
e.g. "human rights": {loi se jvazi'e be fi lo tcaci be loi remna prami} (zo'o)
-or- {fi lo tcacti fo lo remna prami}
also: u'u I was missing the x3 place in my previous def. rectified:
ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a ko'i poi javni ko'e ko'o
In inalienable right is not really inalienable in the logical sense of the word. Your inalienable rights can be witheld from you. e.g. by terrorists
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:42 PM, A. PIEKARSKI
<totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>How about this:
>The dictionary definition for "right" is:
>"a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right
>to say what you please."
>So the way I see it - A right is a liberty then is given to you by a specific
>"rule" (I first wanted to use {flalu} (law) but since it doesn't have to be a
>legal rule, I chose {javni} which is a more general class than {flalu}).
>
>jvazi'e: x1 has the right to do x2 by power of rule x3 in community/system x4
>
>from:
>
>ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a lo javni be ko'e bei ko'o
>
>Therefore, a "right" would be a {lo se jvazi'e}
>
'Rights' include 'natural/inalienable rights' among others. What rule
determines
what natural/inalienable we have?
totus