If you look real close you will see there are QUOTATION MARKS around that word, as I was quoting you. I, personally don't feel there is an inalienable right to live for such a test case as I outlined, which, I notice, you failed to address.
What you 'personally feel' has nothing to do with it.
If, as you say, there is no inalienable right to live, then, all other inalienable rights that ensue from this, either explicitly or what logically follows from it, doesn't exist as well. Are you with me so far?
The law therefore, which was meant to
PROTECT these inalienable rights, is a matter based on nothing but sentiment - hence
ARBITRARY. A law that is arbitrary, by definition, is a
TYRANNICAL LAW - a condition
CONTRARY to human existence and dignity.
As for your test case, the reasoning follows quite clearly. Inalienable right exists hence necessitating the political association to protect them with the common force. The political association remains the most natural and logical refuge of human existence. What arises from the political association are civil rights - those that pertain to our obligations toward society (and vice versa), while keeping our inalienable rights inviolate.
It stands to reason from the foregoing that for people who represents a clear danger to the political association, their civil rights may be revoked (through the penal system) while still respecting their inalienable rights.
So you see, there is absolutely no reason for the state - the embodiment of sovereign will and power, with the whole of the common force at its disposal - to execute a criminal as an exercise of justice.
