Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises

  • Agree that " equal wrights " advocates should distinguish between negative and positive wrights .

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • Agree that " equal wrights " advocates should distinguish between negative and positive liberties .

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Agree that " negative liberty " should be " equally protected " .

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • Agree that " negative liberty " may not be " equally protected " .

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Agree that " positive liberty " should be " equally endowed " .

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Agree that " positive iberty " may not be " equally endowed " .

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,219
783
140
" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "

* Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *

Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?

Does any agree or disagree that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from government and established through negative wrights ; and that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from other individuals , that is established through positive wrights ; and , that " negative liberties " are to be " equally protected " ?

Does any agree or disagree that positive liberties are established through positive wrights and that " positive liberties " may not be " equally endowed " ?


A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy
 
" Big Smiles "

* Waging On Ward *

Da Fuq is this? "Equal wrights"? Ask me how I know you're not from the west. :)
Which direction is east or west relative with your geographic location , assuming you mean nearer in proximity ? :)

My proclivity to apply the term " wright " in neologism as a syllogism for the actual meaning intended by language when alluding to liberties established through written law by law wrights is well founded in Legal positivism - Wikipedia .
 
" Big Smiles "

* Waging On Ward *

Da Fuq is this? "Equal wrights"? Ask me how I know you're not from the west. :)
Which direction is east or west relative with your geographic location , assuming you mean nearer in proximity ? :)

My proclivity to apply the term " wright " in neologism as a syllogism for the actual meaning intended by language when alluding to liberties established through written law by law wrights is well founded in Legal positivism - Wikipedia .

No.

:no_text11:
 
" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "

* Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *

Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?

Does any agree or disagree that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from government and established through negative wrights ; and that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from other individuals , that is established through positive wrights ; and , that " negative liberties " are to be " equally protected " ?

Does any agree or disagree that positive liberties are established through positive wrights and that " positive liberties " may not be " equally endowed " ?


A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

Thanks. Yes I agree.

The radical American Left--and to be fair, to a lesser degree, the American Right--applies Game Theory philosophies to equal rights and protections laws currently, and also has for many decades, in the form of treating such attempts at legislating and adjudicating civil rights and liberties equilibriums as zero sum games with one winner, and thusly, accordingly one loser. Unfortunately, when the intended winners are minorities made the victor by special protection rules, the loser--who must have some freedom removed in order to accommodate the applied zero sum political theory-- can only be everyone else. Nice nod to our neologism defined modern civilization, thanks.
 
" Articulating A New Standard In Schema "

* Following Droning Imbeciles Off A Cliff Because Of Incompetent Information *

A distinction between equal protection and equal endowment is obvious .

Clearly , negative liberties should be equally protected .

Clearly , positive liberties may not be equally endowed .

The following link is to an example where equal protection and equal endowment differ , where illegal migrants are given equal protection , but are not given " equal endowment " to citizenship for themselves or their children born in us - http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/legislative-proposal-children-born-of-illegal-immigrants-to-receive-citizenship-of-mother.705201/ .

A definition for negative and positive wrights should be made consistent with respect to authoritarian actions by government .

Issue is that the contemporary assertions and understanding for Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) lack a logical consistency and lack basic rigor in definition that surmounts to an intellectual travesty and political science buffoonery , on par with the inanity of the conservative versus liberal paradigm !
 
" Articulating A New Standard In Schema "

* Following Droning Imbeciles Off A Cliff Because Of Incompetent Information *

A distinction between equal protection and equal endowment is obvious .

Clearly , negative liberties should be equally protected .

Clearly , positive liberties may not be equally endowed .

The following link is to an example where equal protection and equal endowment differ , where illegal migrants are given equal protection , but are not given " equal endowment " to citizenship for themselves or their children born in us - http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/legislative-proposal-children-born-of-illegal-immigrants-to-receive-citizenship-of-mother.705201/ .

A definition for negative and positive wrights should be made consistent with respect to authoritarian actions by government .

Issue is that the contemporary assertions and understanding for Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) lack a logical consistency and lack basic rigor in definition that surmounts to an intellectual travesty and political science buffoonery , on par with the inanity of the conservative versus liberal paradigm !

We're also getting into a dangerous or slippery slope realm here of Perspectivism social and cultural philosophy. What is a positive (w) right for one social segment strata, can be and often is experienced by another as a negative one. Balancing acts require hierarchies; social hierarchies are most often unbalanced by Party hedonism, anti-empathetic economic philosophies, and politicized identity groups. Lenin had class warfare derived from Marx and Engels; after it failed, his protégé just relocated the entire demographic, starved or murdered it. Today, the American Left has slow burn race warfare, postmodern intelligentsia; while the Right has trickle down water elevators ever in need of repair, and reactionary politicking and economic theory which reacts often far too slowly.
 
" Articulating A New Standard In Schema "

* Following Droning Imbeciles Off A Cliff Because Of Incompetent Information *

A distinction between equal protection and equal endowment is obvious .

Clearly , negative liberties should be equally protected .

Clearly , positive liberties may not be equally endowed .

The following link is to an example where equal protection and equal endowment differ , where illegal migrants are given equal protection , but are not given " equal endowment " to citizenship for themselves or their children born in us - http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/legislative-proposal-children-born-of-illegal-immigrants-to-receive-citizenship-of-mother.705201/ .

A definition for negative and positive wrights should be made consistent with respect to authoritarian actions by government .

Issue is that the contemporary assertions and understanding for Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) lack a logical consistency and lack basic rigor in definition that surmounts to an intellectual travesty and political science buffoonery , on par with the inanity of the conservative versus liberal paradigm !

We're also getting into a dangerous or slippery slope realm here of Perspectivism social and cultural philosophy. What is a positive (w) right for one social segment strata, can be and often is experienced by another as a negative one. Balancing acts require hierarchies; social hierarchies are most often unbalanced by Party hedonism, anti-empathetic economic philosophies, and politicized identity groups. Lenin had class warfare derived from Marx and Engels; after it failed, his protégé just relocated the entire demographic, starved or murdered it. Today, the American Left has slow burn race warfare, postmodern intelligentsia; while the Right has trickle down water elevators ever in need of repair, and reactionary politicking and economic theory which reacts often far too slowly.

It seems like you two are brothers from a different mother.

Yet I have to ask..wtf is a "trickle down water elevator"?
 
" Articulating A New Standard In Schema "

* Following Droning Imbeciles Off A Cliff Because Of Incompetent Information *

A distinction between equal protection and equal endowment is obvious .

Clearly , negative liberties should be equally protected .

Clearly , positive liberties may not be equally endowed .

The following link is to an example where equal protection and equal endowment differ , where illegal migrants are given equal protection , but are not given " equal endowment " to citizenship for themselves or their children born in us - http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/legislative-proposal-children-born-of-illegal-immigrants-to-receive-citizenship-of-mother.705201/ .

A definition for negative and positive wrights should be made consistent with respect to authoritarian actions by government .

Issue is that the contemporary assertions and understanding for Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) lack a logical consistency and lack basic rigor in definition that surmounts to an intellectual travesty and political science buffoonery , on par with the inanity of the conservative versus liberal paradigm !

We're also getting into a dangerous or slippery slope realm here of Perspectivism social and cultural philosophy. What is a positive (w) right for one social segment strata, can be and often is experienced by another as a negative one. Balancing acts require hierarchies; social hierarchies are most often unbalanced by Party hedonism, anti-empathetic economic philosophies, and politicized identity groups. Lenin had class warfare derived from Marx and Engels; after it failed, his protégé just relocated the entire demographic, starved or murdered it. Today, the American Left has slow burn race warfare, postmodern intelligentsia; while the Right has trickle down water elevators ever in need of repair, and reactionary politicking and economic theory which reacts often far too slowly.

It seems like you two are brothers from a different mother.

Yet I have to ask..wtf is a "trickle down water elevator"?

Trickle down economics; tricking down to fill up our pockets and give us a ride on up? Make some sense, Duke?
 
" Articulating A New Standard In Schema "

* Following Droning Imbeciles Off A Cliff Because Of Incompetent Information *

A distinction between equal protection and equal endowment is obvious .

Clearly , negative liberties should be equally protected .

Clearly , positive liberties may not be equally endowed .

The following link is to an example where equal protection and equal endowment differ , where illegal migrants are given equal protection , but are not given " equal endowment " to citizenship for themselves or their children born in us - http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/legislative-proposal-children-born-of-illegal-immigrants-to-receive-citizenship-of-mother.705201/ .

A definition for negative and positive wrights should be made consistent with respect to authoritarian actions by government .

Issue is that the contemporary assertions and understanding for Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) lack a logical consistency and lack basic rigor in definition that surmounts to an intellectual travesty and political science buffoonery , on par with the inanity of the conservative versus liberal paradigm !

We're also getting into a dangerous or slippery slope realm here of Perspectivism social and cultural philosophy. What is a positive (w) right for one social segment strata, can be and often is experienced by another as a negative one. Balancing acts require hierarchies; social hierarchies are most often unbalanced by Party hedonism, anti-empathetic economic philosophies, and politicized identity groups. Lenin had class warfare derived from Marx and Engels; after it failed, his protégé just relocated the entire demographic, starved or murdered it. Today, the American Left has slow burn race warfare, postmodern intelligentsia; while the Right has trickle down water elevators ever in need of repair, and reactionary politicking and economic theory which reacts often far too slowly.

It seems like you two are brothers from a different mother.

Yet I have to ask..wtf is a "trickle down water elevator"?

Trickle down economics; tricking down to fill up our pockets and give us a ride on up? Make some sense, Duke?

Yeah, that's from a long time ago. Americans need something more direct these days.
 
Oh. N_S is talking about economics. Hm. I'd disagree with him there, because it's not just the right.

Both parties are Keynesian. Both parties are the reason we have a patently socialist monetary policy. And neither want to end it because they both benefit from the welfare state that it creates.

But whuheva...
 
" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "

* Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *

Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?

Does any agree or disagree that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from government and established through negative wrights ; and that " equal protection " is congruent with negative liberty from other individuals , that is established through positive wrights ; and , that " negative liberties " are to be " equally protected " ?

Does any agree or disagree that positive liberties are established through positive wrights and that " positive liberties " may not be " equally endowed " ?


A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy
I have a problem of what wrights are and can not really give a half ass response. Unless it is a typo.
 
Oh. N_S is talking about economics. Hm. I'd disagree with him there, because it's not just the right.

Both parties are Keynesian.Bot hparties are the reason we have a patently socialist monetary policy.

But whuheva...

I actually agree with you. I was throwing out bones to be fetched. I never was very diplomatic, but I try.
 
Oh. N_S is talking about economics. Hm. I'd disagree with him there, because it's not just the right.

Both parties are Keynesian.Bot hparties are the reason we have a patently socialist monetary policy.

But whuheva...

I actually agree with you. I was throwing out bones to be fetched. I never was very diplomatic, but I try.

Yeah. As an afterthought, I kind of figured you did. Your postings are always really good, and I've always found them agreeable.
 
Oh. N_S is talking about economics. Hm. I'd disagree with him there, because it's not just the right.

Both parties are Keynesian. Both parties are the reason we have a patently socialist monetary policy. And neither want to end it because they both benefit from the welfare state that it creates.

But whuheva...
I noticed the quote at the end of your post. It is interesting that the Rothschild are the ones who control the Federal reserve today.
 
" Not Too Complicated Political Science Terminology "

* Egregious Acts Against Apatheistic Analysis Of Creed *
I can understand that there are rights, and liberty, I never gave much attention to the neg or pos descriptor to any of these. I don't think there are any negative rights tho.
My presumption would be that a negative right is minus 90 degrees of angle .

The term right alludes to perpendicular with the horizon , as in to right a ship , or to stand up right , that also alludes to a Norm (mathematics) - Wikipedia , and often to a plumb line of some length - a Gnomon - Wikipedia , from which a notion of Natural law - Wikipedia and Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia ( sic ) is asserted .

Now if one wishes to allude to natural rights as some idealistic conjecture , such is not a detriment to reason , while alluding to writs of law as legal wrights is a correct application of terminology , as to do otherwise is not only incorrect , but too often fools conjecture a rite to implement written law even while it asserts said laws to be equivalent with a conjectural right .

* Quotations From Link References *

"
Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind.

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
"
 
Last edited:
" Contentious Observation More Deeply Analyzed "

* Civics Courses Missing Informed Consent *
Yeah, that's from a long time ago. Americans need something more direct these days.
Another policy issue to which negative wrights , positive wrights , negative liberties and positive liberties can be applied is to same sex " marriage " .

An ability to enter into a civil union is a negative liberty inherent to self determination ( property ownership , willful intents ) of individualism , that should be equally protected .

Alternatively , equating monogamous , heterosexual , civil unions with some positive wright , otherwise termed a " marriage " , grants a positive liberty that may not be equally endowed .

Amicus Merit Brief on Same Sex Marriage to the Supreme Court of The United States
 
Last edited:
" Contentious Observation More Deeply Analyzed "

* Civics Courses Missing Informed Consent *

Yeah, that's from a long time ago. Americans need something more direct these days.
Another policy issue to which negative wrights , positive wrights , negative liberties and positive liberties can be applied is to establish a distinction that an ability to enter into a civil union is a negative liberty inherent to self determination ( property ownership , willful intents ) of individualism .

Alternatively , qualifying monogamous , heterosexual , civil unions with a positive wright , otherwise termed a " marriage " , grants some positive liberty that may not be equally endowed .

Amicus Merit Brief on Same Sex Marriage to the Supreme Court of The United States

In America, there should be no "negative liberties".

Unfortunately, after 2001 there have been some, and there should not be.

Also that "Brady bill" thing, too.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top