&gt; Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated.<p>Perhaps meaningful in the abstract, but a meaningless distinction in practice.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s pretty obvious that they exist, otherwise nobody would really care about murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc.<p>That does not follow.  There are in fact people who don&#x27;t care about those things; that some people do does not mean inalienable rights somehow exist as anything more than social norms.<p>&gt; So the burden of proof is on those that want to limit or deny inalienable rights.<p>No, the burden of proof of any claim of existence is always on the one claiming something does exist; proving something doesn&#x27;t exist is not logically possible as there&#x27;s always somewhere you can&#x27;t look (the universe is big) and thus an invalid statement not subject to the burden of proof because it&#x27;s wrong to claim at all.