Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Positive and Negative Rights and the Right to Vote  (Read 500 times)

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,778
Re: Positive and Negative Rights and the Right to Vote
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2021, 05:46:23 PM »

The conundrum you have arrived at is a predictable consequence of beginning with a word salad, and then trying to draw real world, cash value conclusions from it.

Ultimately your theory of rights is a word game unless other people agree and to an extent, respect them. Voting is one way of achieving consensus on what other people will ask of you, respect of your asks, and the degree to which they will leave you to your own devices. Voting is a pretty good method by which you can test your language about rights - as you can see, other people will start to question the arbitrary categories you come up with, which will give you a good idea of what to expect in the real world and how to go about convincing other people to approach you in the way you want to be approached.


I think you're oversimplifying what I posted in the OP.

Rights aren't just rights.  The SCOTUS looks at them through all manner of lenses.  Individual, collective, incorporated, positive and negative.  All of these perspectives have been actively used arguing for and against various civil rights cases before the SCOTUS, and in the court's opinions.

If you just go out and throw out "I got muh rights!" on a topic without being sure you want to use the perspective you are using... you could end up creating legal precedent supporting something that you might actually oppose.

"Words offer the means to meaning, and for those that will listen, the enunciation of Truth."  --V.

What I'm driving at here is an exploration of whether voting is a positive of negative right.  Since I'm actively pursuing Arizona State legislation to alter Arizona voting laws, I have to be prepared to live with the consequences of whatever I contribute to drafting.  And its potential ramifications on the meaning of rights down the road.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,767
  • like a tree planted by rivers of water
Re: Positive and Negative Rights and the Right to Vote
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2021, 08:45:14 PM »

The conundrum you have arrived at is a predictable consequence of beginning with a word salad, and then trying to draw real world, cash value conclusions from it.

Ultimately your theory of rights is a word game unless other people agree and to an extent, respect them. Voting is one way of achieving consensus on what other people will ask of you, respect of your asks, and the degree to which they will leave you to your own devices. Voting is a pretty good method by which you can test your language about rights - as you can see, other people will start to question the arbitrary categories you come up with, which will give you a good idea of what to expect in the real world and how to go about convincing other people to approach you in the way you want to be approached.

In terms of this idea there are only two categories of rights, well childhood and family relationships seem to be entirely positive based on your framework and conservatives seem to embrace those rights and relationships. Imagine someone refusing to feed their children because being obligated to other people is slavery - on the other end of the spectrum there are people who genuinely believe that responsibility extends from you to your poor neighbours as well. Calling something a positive right doesn’t distinguish between the two or offer a basis for working out why you have to feed your children but not your neighbour.

In your word salad you accuse him of word salad.

His negative rights seem to track with natural rights as derived from natural law. Self evident like the right to life.

His positive rights are entitlements, legal constructs. You can vote and be a part of the decision making.

The battles are mostly over positive rights. Everything is becoming a right because of peoples feelings of entitlement.

The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

Who can escape their own cognitive biases?

Blakenzy

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,822
Re: Positive and Negative Rights and the Right to Vote
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2021, 02:58:58 AM »

Voting is kind of weird. It's just a proposed mechanism by which you are able to express consent to be governed by x, y or z (y or. z in the US, no third party.. maybe even just y now  ;) ) It's flawed however, and perhaps even an illusion because you can only vote in favor of being governed. You can't vote to "not be governed". It does not allow you to deny consent directly. Non voters are not tallied or considered. So voting is something that applies more to society as a whole rather than to individuals, and it's purpose isn't to give individuals self determination but to gauge which government is most likely to operate with more stability.

Thinking about that, one could argue that the recent voting was seriously flawed because what we are seeing now is more instability. When government has to conduct it's business behind 20,000 national guardsmen you KNOW something ain't right.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both"
Pages: 1 [2]