But that is a fallacy. There is no such thing as inalienable rights. It should be abundantly clear to everyone just how alienable they are. Rights can only exist in legal framework and people who invented the term are the same people who empowered the state, often that meant themselves to safe guard it. Its like giving a nice juice stake to the hungry lion and expecting not to eat it.,Government needs to and wants to grow to survive. And it has these bogus ideas taken seriously called rights to trade with. Hence it takes this "inalienable" rights from those that do not support big goverment and gives it to those that do. That is why strip clubs were left open and churches were closed during "two weeks to flatten the curve".

No, there is no inalienable rights, They are more privileges given to those that support the goverment and taken away from those that don't and they are very transferable. It should be abundantly and painfully clear to anyone by now. When your goverment, you know the lion you entrust to keep your juice stake fresh, when your goverment was enforcing lock downs and face diapers and closing down business under bogus excuses of "trust the science" , where was magical creator or whomever was suppose to protect the rights than? Constitution? Charter of rights? More like toiler papers.

No. As moral agent, you can choose to behave morally and follow certain moral code. But that is very separate and very different than rights. Rights are currency of the goverment who is on its way to take it away from you and give it to those that support it. They are therefore privileges distributed by the state.

The sooner people realize that the sooner they can shed the chains of liberal ideology and start thinking in more practical terms how to defeat the levitation they created. The state. What keeps the state from abusing its power is not some paper, or some magical concept of rights, its co dependence. If you want to keep the goverment from going bad, you have to find a way to make sure when things go bad for you because of them, it also goes bad for them. As long as they profit from your misery, expect more misery. And you can't hold goverment accountable. They have no moral safeguards, and they have monopoly on violence. Besides, one also must dispel the myth of populism. Because history is quite clear on this. Well organized minority always defeats disorganized majority. Hence you either organize in small groups and go to work, or you will lose to better organized minority. Its always been like that. History is quite clear on the matter.

So small organized efficient ruthless people, hell bent on finding a way to make the other side dependent on its survival on not abusing their power. If you can find a way to do that, than you will achieve what I assume you want. A non abusive relationship.

George Orwell once said that the “English intelligentsia…can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism…So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Having experienced the reality of totalitarianism first-hand, Orwell knew all too well the ways in which people far removed from it employ “soothing phrases” to disguise more sinister ends. Of course, he would later coin the term “Newspeak” in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). This was the totalitarian language created to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism under Big Brother.

“The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years — imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations — not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.”

― George Orwell