07-14-2017, 03:15 PM
One tangent thought tying in with positive and negative rights.
The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms would be a traditional negative right, there in the Constitution, limiting the power of government and guaranteeing that certain things can not be taken away. The red world view thinks this negative right a good thing.
Freedom from Fear would be considered a blue positive right, not in the Constitution, though you can quote a right to Life. Some fear guns. The government might be held responsible for lessening this fear, and often try to do so by limiting access to guns or guns with certain features.
Now, it has been alleged that I don't understand how positive and negative rights can't come into conflict. Well, here they obviously do. The old idea that one has a right to defend one's self is coming into conflict with a notion that the government should subdue anything that causes genuine fear.
The thing to note is that both the positive and negative rights can be defended and believed in. The commitment to either right can be sincere and intense.
My own perspective has the negative rights generally in the Constitution and quite legitimately limiting the power of the government. The positive rights are hinted at, ought perhaps be treated as goals, but are not legally binding. The positive rights are arguably too broad to be made legally binding.
Morally binding? That might be another standard. Folk should not be left in Fear and Want.
The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms would be a traditional negative right, there in the Constitution, limiting the power of government and guaranteeing that certain things can not be taken away. The red world view thinks this negative right a good thing.
Freedom from Fear would be considered a blue positive right, not in the Constitution, though you can quote a right to Life. Some fear guns. The government might be held responsible for lessening this fear, and often try to do so by limiting access to guns or guns with certain features.
Now, it has been alleged that I don't understand how positive and negative rights can't come into conflict. Well, here they obviously do. The old idea that one has a right to defend one's self is coming into conflict with a notion that the government should subdue anything that causes genuine fear.
The thing to note is that both the positive and negative rights can be defended and believed in. The commitment to either right can be sincere and intense.
My own perspective has the negative rights generally in the Constitution and quite legitimately limiting the power of the government. The positive rights are hinted at, ought perhaps be treated as goals, but are not legally binding. The positive rights are arguably too broad to be made legally binding.
Morally binding? That might be another standard. Folk should not be left in Fear and Want.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.