[ceejayoz]

> Only for a very narrow definition of slavery.

Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in".

[0x3f]

Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is.

[ceejayoz]

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips.

[0x3f]

America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist

Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument...

Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.

[ceejayoz]

What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"?

Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion.

[0x3f]

> Should is an opinion.

Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.

[ceejayoz]

> Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable.

You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice.

They get violated all the time and need constant protecting.