It's not positive and negative liberty, it's positive and negative rights.
Negative rights are things that you inherently have due to being human that people (especially the government) shouldn't take from you - things like freedom of speech, ability to defend yourself, right to control your property, etc. (basically, the bill of rights type stuff)
Positive rights are when people get greedy and say they have a right to take stuff from someone and give it to themselves. Such as "Other people should pay for my education!" "Other people should pay for my health care!" "Other people should pay for my internet access!" etc. (basically, the DNC platform)
Again you’re playing by their framing, positive and negative have direct intent, you are either adding or detracting. There is nothing negative in inherent rights, neither is it what they argue. “Negative” liberty is liberty, “positive” liberty is communism. If we were to use positive and negative as they words intent implies then positive liberty is additional freedoms without cost applied to others. Negative liberty is additional freedoms at the cost of others.
Positive and negative aren't synonymous for good and bad in this context. It's from the perspective of the government. Negative rights are about what the government isn't allowed to do, like jail you without cause, restrict your free speech and gun rights, ect. Positive rights means the government has to take action to fulfill them rather than just refrain from tyrannical behavior. Examples would be all the free shit the left wants to give free loaders to buy votes. In effect this means robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is why positive rights are bad. But positive and negative are not moral judgements in this context.
Notice what you did. You defended an avenue of thought after you acknowledged it was inherently flawed. Positive and negative in terms of government should never be defined on how it impacts government. Government is a system built by citizens, therefore the only metric of impact that matters in the aspect of positive and negative is the impact upon the people.
It's not positive and negative liberty, it's positive and negative rights.
Negative rights are things that you inherently have due to being human that people (especially the government) shouldn't take from you - things like freedom of speech, ability to defend yourself, right to control your property, etc. (basically, the bill of rights type stuff)
Positive rights are when people get greedy and say they have a right to take stuff from someone and give it to themselves. Such as "Other people should pay for my education!" "Other people should pay for my health care!" "Other people should pay for my internet access!" etc. (basically, the DNC platform)
Again you’re playing by their framing, positive and negative have direct intent, you are either adding or detracting. There is nothing negative in inherent rights, neither is it what they argue. “Negative” liberty is liberty, “positive” liberty is communism. If we were to use positive and negative as they words intent implies then positive liberty is additional freedoms without cost applied to others. Negative liberty is additional freedoms at the cost of others.
Positive and negative aren't synonymous for good and bad in this context. It's from the perspective of the government. Negative rights are about what the government isn't allowed to do, like jail you without cause, restrict your free speech and gun rights, ect. Positive rights means the government has to take action to fulfill them rather than just refrain from tyrannical behavior. Examples would be all the free shit the left wants to give free loaders to buy votes. In effect this means robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is why positive rights are bad. But positive and negative are not moral judgements in this context.
Notice what you did. You defended an avenue of thought after you acknowledged it was inherently flawed. Positive and negative in terms of government should never be defined on how it impacts government. Government is a system built by citizens, therefore the only metric of impact that matters in the aspect of positive and negative is the impact upon the people.
Let me guess: you bitched about a negative HIV test, didn't you?