Fundamenatal rights are always expressed in the negative, due to the basic principle of liberty.
Question: whence commeth the need for negation? What is it about negation that makes us speak and write that way? It is ingrained in language, and we usually pronounce what is not. Yet, we still are far away from what it is.
The latter: what is it (manna; hahahaha) is the crux, right?
It takes a lot of effort to remain positively worded.
You are clearly mistaken, as you mix up positive thinking with positive language as opposed to negations. Try this thought experiment.
DO NOT PARK
vs
PARKING COSTS 500-$ a minute.
Added:
You have a point, and it concerns to what this is addressed:
The document containing such phrases is addresses to government, and by using such language, it shows that institution by man are by it's very nature infants.
Interesting salient point:
Question: whence commeth the need for negation? What is it about negation that makes us speak and write that way? It is ingrained in language, and we usually pronounce what is not. Yet, we still are far away from what it is.
The latter: what is it (manna; hahahaha) is the crux, right?
It takes a lot of effort to remain positively worded.
Thinking positive has nothing to do with the fact that writing laws requires the negative.
Look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law ..."
"No person ..."
"Shall not be infringed."
Has to be that way to ensure the positive of liberty.
interesting position.
You are clearly mistaken, as you mix up positive thinking with positive language as opposed to negations. Try this thought experiment.
DO NOT PARK
vs
PARKING COSTS 500-$ a minute.
Added:
You have a point, and it concerns to what this is addressed:
The document containing such phrases is addresses to government, and by using such language, it shows that institution by man are by it's very nature infants.