1.) Do you think this organization concerns nominative rights or positive rights? why or why not? and what tools do you see these advocates using to make their rights movement effective? which do you think are most useful for a rights movement?
2.) In what ways do you think nominative rights influence policy decisions? do you think these decisions are beneficial to our society? why? Examples: no Gay marriage, marijuana being illegal, the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), freedom of speech...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
#2
I find the idea of a “right” somewhat funny. All the examples you gave existed before they were turned into “rights”. There were gay people, marijuana grew freely, and people could say whatever they wanted (or they could stay completely silent. We (humans/Americans) made up these rights and regulations. The problem with all of them harkens back to the question, “what kind of government would you want to see if you were an alien to the planet?” Our “rights” hinder our happiness. I don’t think they are beneficial. In fact, if marijuana was legalized, I think there would be fewer teen suicides. And if gay marriage was legalized…well, they could be as unhappy in their marriages as straight couples. Point being: do not restrain yourself; rather, embrace all this planet has to offer.
2) I think nominative rights obviously influence policy decisions. The decisions that are made for the public are based on our rights and always relate to rights. You can relate any law that is passed or any policy that is created to a certain type of right of the people. In California, gay couples do not currently have the right to get married. This current situation obviously influences the policy decisions in California at this time. Also, when a policy is written, it has to be constitutional. This means it has to follow the rules set out by the rights of the citizens. Thus, all policy decisions are influenced by the rights we are given as citizens.
Yes I think that policy comes directly from nominative rights. We only create new policies because of what we think should be allowed or not (for the most part). I don't think any policy was put in place just for the hell of it without people thinking that it was the right thing to do. Whether they're beneficial or not I think varies from person to person. Some will benefit and some won't with each policy.
#2
I think that to the people who create the rules and laws it makes sense to them but to the people that it is really effecting it makes no sense. Like with gay marriage it may seem fair to the people "who dont want to see it" but to the homosexual's it affects them and is not fair to them.
#1
I think ADAPT's concerns are nominative rights that have evolved into positive rights. The advocates of ADAPT have resorted to protesting and being arrested at times to get their point across. This demonstrates their strong opinion which must be based through their rationality, morality, or something to that affect. Those sources make the desired rights for handicaps nominative, but the laws placed by the government on businesses has moved those right into the realm of positive rights. Personally, I think the clip they show of the protesters trying to get arrested makes me think less of them and thus less of their cause, so I would say that it is probably not the most effective way to get their point across.
Nominative rights completely influence policy decisions. I would like to say that it is a good thing but Alex brought up a good point. If you look at the examples you listed, they were once free for all those who wished, to experience. Most policies today are based off of the rights of individuals. They are more beneficial to some than others.
I agree with what Alex said, our rights dont always help us like those who believe in Positive liberty would say they do. I like Alex's Negative Liberty perspective on this question, we did live for many many years without the Bill of rights, policies, and a government, and we made it until 2009 right? But the problem is with out mediation from the government, I believe that people rights would be abused, we may even go back to slave days. Without rights who is to say that I will not be put to work as a slave tomorrow.
2. By definition, nominative rights influence policy decisions - policy decisions are made (hopefully) in accordance with, and with the purpose of furthering, our nominative rights. As for whether these decisions are beneficial, I think you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. In some ways, I think policy can be based too stringently on nominative rights, which can result in disconnected, out-of-touch, often ridiculous policy that sticks too closely to the letter and not the spirit of the law. But on the other hand, we need SOME standard by which to assess rights. I don't know that it's possible to even find a good middle ground - I think we might just have to settle with policies that generally preserve rights and accept that they will still engender the occasional injustice.
I think nominative rights influence policy decisions. I have to agree with alex along with everyone else because these things were legal at one point and people did these things if they wanted. I don't think this is fair to the people that are effected like the gay communtiy that some people can be effected by these deccions.
there is no doubt that nominative rights directly influence policy making. A policy can not be determined without the consinderation of the rights of the people. for instance, the policy that gay marriage is not legal DOES NOT take into consideration of the rights of the people, therefore makeing the policy a violation of the constitution. The constitution states that all citizens have the right to be treated equally. no where in the constitution does it say " all citizens have the right to be treated equally. . . depending on their gender."
-brittney martinelli
Post a Comment