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
" Elaborating Subtle Nuances Of Absurdity "

* Signature Problem Hilarity *
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.
Again , negative wrights establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government - libertarianism ) , however negative wrights do not establish negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government as positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence for an establishment of positive liberties , which is entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) .

Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfil one's own potential). The distinction was introduced by Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty".
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes negative liberty:

"The negative concept of freedom ... is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty."[1][2]
 
Last edited:
" Elaborating Subtle Nuances Of Absurdity "

* Signature Problem Hilarity *
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.
Again , negative wrights establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government - libertarianism ) , however negative wrights do not establish negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government as positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence for an establishment of positive liberties , which is entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) .

Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfil one's own potential). The distinction was introduced by Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty".
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes negative liberty:

"The negative concept of freedom ... is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty."[1][2]

Ask me how I know you don't live in the US. :1peleas:

GTFO here, Russian shill. Or if you're not Russian, GFY anyays.

You are not a US citizen, STFU on this topic. You know jack shit about what is going on.
 
" Elaborating Subtle Nuances Of Absurdity "

* Signature Problem Hilarity *
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.
Again , negative wrights establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government - libertarianism ) , however negative wrights do not establish negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government as positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence for an establishment of positive liberties , which is entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) .

Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfil one's own potential). The distinction was introduced by Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty".
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes negative liberty:

"The negative concept of freedom ... is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty."[1][2]

You should hook up with danielpalos . He's not as verbose as you, but equally incoherent. It'll be a party.
 
" Liberal Versus Conservative Paradigm Is Intellectual Stupidity "

* A Problem With Deeply Ingrained Cultural Stupidity *
Ask me how I know you don't live in the US. :1peleas:
GTFO here, Russian shill. Or if you're not Russian, GFY anyays.
You are not a US citizen, STFU on this topic. You know jack shit about what is going on.
I am many generations born , raised , damned well educated and reside in the us ; and , it is you and the other mental midgets on the left and the right the need your political perspectives rectified .

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .
 
" Liberal Versus Conservative Paradigm Is Intellectual Stupidity "

* A Problem With Deeply Ingrained Cultural Stupidity *
Ask me how I know you don't live in the US. :1peleas:
GTFO here, Russian shill. Or if you're not Russian, GFY anyays.
You are not a US citizen, STFU on this topic. You know jack shit about what is going on.
I am many generations born , raised , damned well educated and reside in the us ; and , it is you and the other mental midgets on the left and the right the need your political perspectives rectified .

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .


Sure you are, cupcake. :iyfyus.jpg:

Who invented the airplane?
 
" Political Science For The Brain Washed "

* People Living In A Fog *

You should hook up with danielpalos . He's not as verbose as you, but equally incoherent. It'll be a party.
Some idiot corrupts political science and basic terminology , by promoting that " liberal " is not restricted to negative liberty but that it also includes positive liberty as well , and the bandwagon of fools willfully adopts the orwellian double speak and vehemently defends that others surrender to it .

Classical Liberal - Conservapedia
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism) is a term used to describe the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill as well as its revival in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others. This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is sometimes called "new liberalism" or "neo-liberalism"

This political philosophy supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, and views the state as an entity which exists to protect those inherent rights. This can be ensured by a constitution or other such framework which protects individual autonomy and property from other individuals and governmental power (including economic power). The normative core of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire governance, a natural order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges which satisfies human goals and desires.

The qualification "classical" has been applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, because modern American liberalism is closer identified with social democracy.


In the United States, the term "liberal" has changed meaning since the 1930s following policies enacted by Democratic leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time Classical Liberalism is more in line with conservative or libertarian politics and philosophy. In other parts of the world, particularly continental Europe and Japan, this view is still referred to as liberalism.

A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state.
 
" Political Science For The Brain Washed "

* People Living In A Fog *

You should hook up with danielpalos . He's not as verbose as you, but equally incoherent. It'll be a party.
Some idiot corrupts political science and basic terminology , by promoting that " liberal " is not restricted to negative liberty but that it also includes positive liberty as well , and the bandwagon of fools willfully adopts the orwellian double speak and vehemently defends that others surrender to it .

Classical Liberal - Conservapedia
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism) is a term used to describe the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill as well as its revival in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others. This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is sometimes called "new liberalism" or "neo-liberalism"

This political philosophy supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, and views the state as an entity which exists to protect those inherent rights. This can be ensured by a constitution or other such framework which protects individual autonomy and property from other individuals and governmental power (including economic power). The normative core of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire governance, a natural order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges which satisfies human goals and desires.

The qualification "classical" has been applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, because modern American liberalism is closer identified with social democracy.


In the United States, the term "liberal" has changed meaning since the 1930s following policies enacted by Democratic leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time Classical Liberalism is more in line with conservative or libertarian politics and philosophy. In other parts of the world, particularly continental Europe and Japan, this view is still referred to as liberalism.

A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state.

Some people here conflate "Liberal" with "Leftist Democrat" here. They are 2 entirely different ways of thinking. I don't mind liberals.

Not many liberals left in the Democrat party these days, more like Communists, Anarchists, and Social Marxists.

There's a few liberals on USMB. I may not agree with them all the time, but people have different opinions, yannow?
 
Last edited:
" Missing Standards "

* Dominating Bureaucrats *
Some people here conflate "Liberal" with "Leftist Democrat" here. They are 2 entirely different ways of thinking. I don't mind liberals.
Not many liberals left in the Democrat party these days, more like Communists, Anarchists, and Social Marxists.
The correct descriptor of communist , social marxists , would be authoritarians otherwise known as government conservatives .

The distinctions between negative wrights and positive wrights , between negative liberties and positive positive liberties , have been abandoned as civics and political science constructs , thereby making it difficult to denote the actual nature of public policies .

Liberals are not liberals and conservatives are not conservatives and to me it is disturbing .
 
" Pinion Leverage Four Where Two Stand "

* Necessary Corrections To Vernacular For Sufficient Diction *

" Liberal Versus Conservative Paradigm Is Intellectual Stupidity "

* A Problem With Deeply Ingrained Cultural Stupidity *

I am many generations born , raised , damned well educated and reside in the us ; and , it is you and the other mental midgets on the left and the right the need your political perspectives rectified .

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles ( sic ) and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles ( sic ) or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .
A correction of terminology is required , " The principles of libertarianism stipulate non violence principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non violence principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights . " .

* Principles Of Non Violence Versus Non Aggression Clarification Required Of Civics *

.
.
 

Forum List

Back
Top