You can’t eat your cake and have it too and A is A. If you are for freedom then be for freedom. If you are for unalienable rights then be for unalienable rights. There can be no qualifications to unalienable rights since by definition unalienable rights exist with or without your approval and don’t need your management, regulation, or re-construction. If you want to argue that unalienable rights are “limited” to what some dead guy said they were, i.e. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, then you have no understanding of the word unalienable means. If you want to argue that rights are malleable and legal inventions that only government can determine then be honest and admit you have no regard for unalienable rights. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.

If you want to argue that only privileged souls fortunate enough to reside in a nation where the magnanimous have bestowed these privileges you call right and want to be seen as reasonable, then be reasonable and admit that you have no regard for rights and only privileges. If you want to be free but want others to be slaves or imprisoned then be honest about this and admit that it is not freedom you advocate but rather hierarchy and that you think you are above certain others. You can’t have it both ways and you can’t eat your cake and have it too.