4 ms·

It sounds like you're talking about the distinction between positive versus negative liberties as defined by Isaiah Berlin. I'm not sure the original concept of

It sounds like you're talking about the distinction between positive versus negative liberties as defined by Isaiah Berlin. I'm not sure the original concept of rights was ever limited to just negative liberties, i.e. freedom from government. There's a nice Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative...

nemo44x 3y ago
I’m talking about the “Bill of Rights” which is a description of government limitations. It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. And now we talk more about what you’re entitled to for existing. You aren’t owed shit regardless of what some communist at Stanford wants to word salad about.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. The Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the Magna Carta...
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Great, precedence! Let’s keep it up by defining rights as things that government is limited by. Not empowered by.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I’m talking about the “Bill of Rights” which is a description of government limitations. It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. Are you referring to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, or the later US package of Constitutional amendments which takes its name from the first and provisions from both the first and the second? Because if you are referring to the last of those, you are so very, very wrong!
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  I wasn't making a claim about what government owes people, and ironically that Stanford article was primarily citing classical liberals who did not bear much resemblance to the communists you have in mind. I had assumed you were referencing the American Bill of Rights, being a great example of negative liberties ("Congress shall make no law..."). I just found that confusing since the comment you responded to was talking about the British and Indian governments.
- rhuru 3y ago
  Bill of rights is/was not a novel concept. It has roots in many older systems in Europe.
rhuru 3y ago
I am not OP but what you are discussing is much higher level stuff. Problems of "rights" in India are totally twisted and far more primal that a typical western mind wont be able to grasp at all. Imagine a "right to education" law that mandates that a school can not fill up empty classrooms even if it has capacity and even if it offering it to needy students for free. It is a complete looney beans land.

nemo44x 3y ago

I’m talking about the “Bill of Rights” which is a description of government limitations. It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. And now we talk more about what you’re entitled to for existing. You aren’t owed shit regardless of what some communist at Stanford wants to word salad about.

ramblenode 3y ago
> It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. The Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the Magna Carta...
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Great, precedence! Let’s keep it up by defining rights as things that government is limited by. Not empowered by.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I’m talking about the “Bill of Rights” which is a description of government limitations. It was a completely novel concept in terms of rule. Are you referring to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, or the later US package of Constitutional amendments which takes its name from the first and provisions from both the first and the second? Because if you are referring to the last of those, you are so very, very wrong!
- nemo44x 3y ago
  [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
I wasn't making a claim about what government owes people, and ironically that Stanford article was primarily citing classical liberals who did not bear much resemblance to the communists you have in mind. I had assumed you were referencing the American Bill of Rights, being a great example of negative liberties ("Congress shall make no law..."). I just found that confusing since the comment you responded to was talking about the British and Indian governments.
rhuru 3y ago
Bill of rights is/was not a novel concept. It has roots in many older systems in Europe.

rhuru 3y ago

I am not OP but what you are discussing is much higher level stuff. Problems of "rights" in India are totally twisted and far more primal that a typical western mind wont be able to grasp at all. Imagine a "right to education" law that mandates that a school can not fill up empty classrooms even if it has capacity and even if it offering it to needy students for free. It is a complete looney beans land.