1) What are some concepts that help us to distinguish what is a positive right and what should be considered a normative right? Is there a grey area? Are there some normative rights that should be considered as legal or positive rights? Why?
In this chapter, Stone talks about how a normative definition of rights may bring about controversy in policy making and may also challenge legal rights. 2) How might it be possible for a normative meanings of rights to challenge legal rights? How do we determine in policy which rights are more important than others? Should some override others? Use examples if needed.
There is a large amount of indoctrination within the United States, in fact, probably more than we may even realize since we are being indoctrinated so often. The media is the soul reason for why we are indoctrinated at the level we are. They are so good at it, that people may not even notice that biased information and data can manipulate their opinion.
In regards to healthcare, it is interesting that the requirements are so slim because everyone is covered anyways. When immigrants coming over are being treated, regardless of their insurance, it is a huge financial loss. When anyone goes into the emergency room, they are treated. This is paid for by everyone, regardless of financial status.
I believe it absolutely a smart strategic move for Jay-Z to ignore these attacks from smaller competition. In this case, if he were to retaliate, it would only give smaller competition longer time in the spotlight, which would increase their chances at success. It would also show a sense of fear if he cared enough to respond.
I do not feel that targeting a specific group of people, whether it is cost-effective or not, is fair to the entire population. I think through this, certain groups are unequally favored over another. Not only does it make things unequal, its gives another group an unfair advantage.
The author makes a good point in the fact that visual reasoning usually works more effectively when relevant information is shown side by side. It is easier for a reader to understand the significance of something if they have something else to compare it to. I think that is how policy is either passed or not passed, based on whether that significance is strong enough.
I agree with Sharena in a way that culture, while important, is not necessary for growth in development and to rise out of poverty. Naturally, it seems as if economic growth would be at the top of the list of necessities, however, I feel that environment is of higher need. If a community is not happy within their environment, the economy cannot grow in the way that it would with a positive environment.
In this chapter, Stone talks about how a normative definition of rights may bring about controversy in policy making and may also challenge legal rights.
2) How might it be possible for a normative meanings of rights to challenge legal rights? How do we determine in policy which rights are more important than others? Should some override others? Use examples if needed.