>There's nothing in the legal definition of "right" that implies it must be waiveable. From Black's Law Dictionary: "An interest or expectation guaranteed by law".

I wasn't speaking of legal definitions, just making the uninteresting observation that, if I can't trade a right for something more valuable to me, then it is functionally an obligation, and not the bundle of goodness typically associated with rights. Again, consider the difference between a property right in your apples when you can vs can't sell/give them.

>There are inalienable (or inherent rights) which cannot be transferred ...

>And there are rights which cannot be waived. The right to sue, for example, though you might lose your right to trial by jury if you agree to arbitration. ...

You're assuming exactly what's under dispute. I don't accept that such rights should exist, so asserting that they do tells me nothing more than that you agree with the (IMHO misguided) legal classification certain rights have.

I certainly agree that some rights need a higher standard of proof, waiting period, etc before giving up, to establish that it's valid consent and the person is thinking clearly and so on. (We definitely dont do this right when it comes to police searches.) But that's miles away from certain rights being unconditionally inalienable by the holder.

Have you ever thought about why others should always be able to veto my sale of a right altogether?

Edit: I'd appreciate a more constructive response than downvoting.

I'm not among the downvoters (it's not possible for responses to ones' own posts), but you're continuing to argue for something that's not at all supported under legal doctrine, as well as highly disfunctional in reality, though you're at least doing so under the cloak of personal belief, rather than trying to claim some sort of authority.

Your definitions continue to be fabrications without foundations in broader legal or political theory.

Me: A right you can't waive is burdensome.

You: Well, Black's law disagrees. Under current precedent some rights can't be waived.

Me: But my point is just that such laws are stupid. To the extent that waiving a right can lead to bad situations, the problem is the lack of true, informed consent and so should be addressed at that level.

You: Current legal precent refutes that.

Me: ???

I don't care to get into this debate now because reasons.

But you might want to look up why certain rights are generally considered or legislated to be non-waivable.

Guiding hint: it sets up perverse incentives, creates tremendous power imbalances (and exacerbates existing ones), and, net net, is seen as a negative for society.

You haven't made any points, you've asserted them, backing up along an increasingly narrow and slippery, and steep platform as you're cornered with a set of inconvenient facts regarding your case. Among the reasons I find any discussion with you to be, in all likelihood, to be tremendously unproductive.

So I'm out, but you're welcome to research further on your own.

>But you might want to look up why certain rights are generally considered or legislated to be non-waivable.

I'm intimately familiar with them! It's why I've come to my conclusion: all of the reasons are either confused, would invalidate the right to sell one's apples, or are an issue of informed consent that only justify greater scrutiny, waiting periods, etc rather than a blanket "lol you can't trade that right".

Had you read my responses, you could have articulated -- perhaps even substantiated -- those reasons in your own words the first (not fourth) time around, rather than dwell on the orthogonal issue of how many jurists agree with you. Then we could have had a productive discussion and probed each other regarding the basis for our beliefs, and perhaps learn something from each other.

But as it stands, you chose to condescendingly lecture me about issues that don't speak to those I raised, as per my previous reply.

Next time, would you mind focusing on the substance, rather than on citing Black's Law to refute that "a right ... is not a right" and such?

For example, you could have said something like, "well, inalienable rights can definitely feel like obligations, but capping what people can waive has the following benefit ..." And then gone on about the stuff you're only now saying. See how much more productive that is?