• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is your preferred Gov't. One that grants rights, or one that's prevented from interfering?

Positive or Negative Rights?

  • Total voters
    19

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,244
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
As a follow up to the "Define a Rights" poll I thought it would be good to ask:

Would you rather a Government that GRANTED you Rights, or one that was prevented from interfering with your rights.
I.E. Positive Rights Vs Negative Rights.

The USA is founded on Natural Rights, and is an example of a Negative Rights system of government.

Please feel free to discuss.
 
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? You can have both, it is the defining trait of modern liberalism.
 

It is strange that you assume that Govt. is the only entity that can infringe on your rights. Without Govt. no ones rights are secure.
 
Other, because policies oversimplified to the point of stupidity are oversimplified to the point of stupidity.
 
The only rights a person has are those which another person or entity bigger and stronger than them allows them to have.
 
radcen said:
The only rights a person has are those which another person or entity bigger and stronger than them allows them to have.
Click to expand...

that's why I want honest citizens well armed. Nothing makes people as equal as a firearm
 
TurtleDude said:
that's why I want honest citizens well armed. Nothing makes people as equal as a firearm
Click to expand...

"Honest" being far more important, in my not at all humble opinion.

The rabble seems to have lost its mind lately.
 
Mr Person said:
"Honest" being far more important, in my not at all humble opinion.

The rabble seems to have lost its mind lately.
Click to expand...

I actually believe that old saying its better ten guilty go free than one innocent man hang. Or putting in this environment, I'd rather have a few scum bags misuse a right than have a good person denied his rights
 
Governments don't grant rights, they only take them. Laws can't stop governments from doing this, only the threat of rebellion.

We should just topple all the governments and start over.
 
TurtleDude said:
I actually believe that old saying its better ten guilty go free than one innocent man hang. Or putting in this environment, I'd rather have a few scum bags misuse a right than have a good person denied his rights
Click to expand...

Mind replacing the Commonwealth's attorney on the latest brief?
 

No such thing as natural rights
 
Much has been made of this as of late.

The assertion in the foundational documents are that rights come from God, and the government's job is to ensure those rights for its citizens.
 
There are no rights save those that society defines, upholds and protects; choose yours wisely.
 
Lets see what our buddy Sam had to say:

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
Click to expand...

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
Click to expand...


Our union is now complete; our constitution composed, established, and approved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties.
Click to expand...
 
The USA was founded on Natural Rights, but the Patriot Act and Peremanent War of hegemony have altered that significantly. /
 

Currently, our society in the US is a combination of both.

Those rights that are negative rights are those that are actually rights.

Those that are Positive rights are more accurately defined as stylish privileges.

I don't need anyone's approval to exercise negative rights. I do need the approval of others to exercise positive rights.

So, I can speak saying those things that I wish. That is my right. I don't need anything else to do so. It can be stopped, but to exercise that right, nothing is needed by my decision to speak.

That is my RIGHT to free speech.

My "right" to vote is something else entirely. That is granted and protected by the state. I need to qualify to vote and I must be of a certain age living in a certain place and possessing certain other qualifiers.

Because our language has been intentionally perverted by those with particular agendas and goals, confusion exists between what is a right and what is privilege.
 
APB212 said:
Governments don't grant rights, they only take them. Laws can't stop governments from doing this, only the threat of rebellion.

We should just topple all the governments and start over.
Click to expand...

That was the genius of the Bill of Rights.

The threat of the rebellion, that is, not joining the United States in the fist place, was so real that the only way to move forward was to guarantee non-intrusion into particular areas of activity.
 
vegas giants said:
No such thing as natural rights
Click to expand...

Of course there are.

I have the right to free speech unless it is removed by others.

I don't have the right to vote or drive or buy stuff unless it is granted and protected by others.

See the difference?

If Code says something in the forest, did he actually make a sound? Doesn't matter. He has the right to say it.
 
I used to be for the government granting rights. However, it occurred to me that the people is really what gives the government power or at least that's how it is supposed to be. We gave our consent. The government exists to protect our rights, although that may not always be the case. I feel that it is best to have a government that does not interfere. We should live our lives how we please having our own rights as long as we are not violating others' natural rights. If we were to have our rights granted by the government, that would give them more power. They should be involved as minimal as possible.
(please go easy on me, this is my first post, I just wanted to be more involved and broaden my horizons.)
 
I used to be for the government granting rights. However, it occurred to me that the people is really what gives the government power or at least that's how it is supposed to be. We gave our consent. The government exists to protect our rights, although that may not always be the case. I feel that it is best to have a government that does not interfere. We should live our lives how we please having our own rights as long as we are not violating others' natural rights. If we were to have our rights granted by the government, that would give them more power. They should be involved as minimal as possible.
(please go easy on me, this is my first post, I just wanted to be more involved and broaden my horizons.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…