Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights - Learn Liberty 

+arolu carlos De nada!

Beleza chefe

👋

No. It's crap.

and in the police academy

100% agree with you.

+Naarling Glad you enjoyed it! Do you have any topics you would like to see us cover? --The Learn Liberty team

+Learn Liberty Thanks for asking! For now I am ok :)

+Learn Liberty Articles of confederation

Can you do "The origin of human rights"? I had a debate when people rejected that rights come from God but they also rejected that rights come from the state.

Glad it was helpful!

Yeah, the emphasis on negative rights was used to argue against the Civil Rights Act.

@@Colin22 If democrats simply followed the constitution the civil rights act wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

negative rights: actual rights, liberties positive rights: entitlements (to generate duties on others) and dispensations (from duties)

@This is my Username What on Earth are you talking about?

@@docducttape9270 What? LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.

Does this mean you are against the Civil Rights Act? I mean, that was an imposition of positive rights after all.

Colin, yes.

No it was a restoration of natural rights. The right was always there not imposed on the world.

@@Colin22 I think you're seeing it from the wrong point of view. Maybe this will help. mises.org/library/radical-libertarian-tradition-antislavery-thought?Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&

Anti bernie bots alike. The negative right to accumulate astronomical amounts of currency without returning any measurable value to a society inflicts barriers on a free market and treads on entrepreneurs' positive rights. Also, your relationship to the state is contractual in the sense that you are free to stop participating at any time and move to one of the 4-7 stateless countries in the world.

Marcus Atius Virilis sure, but by that standard any tax you pay infringes your negative rights to control your money, not just the taxes that go toward program you don’t support, eh?

@@KufLMAO Yes, taxation is theft.

That's pretty much the idea behind the video, I think. Do negative rights super-cede positive rights? In other words the "positive right" for food infringes upon others "negative right" to not be unwillingly subservient. Someone has to produce that food somehow or no one could eat it, it takes labor. The person who's labor went into producing that food has the "negative right" to be able to do what he pleases with his own property. When someone claims a right to the food he has produced as one of their "positive rights" they are infringing upon the food producers "negative rights".

The thing is that a country is a concept of a defined region that is a collective of individuals and can not provide anything, only individuals can provide anything for any other individuals. The government protects your right to pursue a steak or food and allow another to choose to provide one or trade one with you in exchange for work or currency. Governments shouldn't be viewed as a 'provider' of anything as it is a system of rules that protect the free exchange of ideas, opinions, events, and physical goods that individuals have and can manipulate. If a government gives anything that is a service or a physical good that for it to exists and get to you or provided it has been done so at the expense and efforts of individual people and without slaves or complete automation of the entire process no service or good can be given 'free' by government. Healthcare is a service where a person 'cares' and tends to your well being using tools and services that others exchange and work to provide to them and your doctor is not a slave that must serve you and disregard his own life to do so. Government provide something that already exists and seizes it from private organizations that operate to create whatever it is and then finance and regulate this preexisting thing that functioned in a profit generating or self sustaining exchange of operational cost to service cost and forces everyone to always pay all the time for something that may or may not ever use or have ever wanted and removed market competition and individual agreement from the exchange for what is being done. Government sucks at goods and services and pays for them with your money by taxing you or printing it making what currency you currently hold worth less for every new dollar they print causing inflation. You can be sure of one thing, whatever a politician offers for free is being done so at the efforts of those who can provide this thing as to acquire funding from a multi trillion dollar pot and absorption into the government and made a monopoly and guaranteed payment that is designed to provide minimums and maximize profit for those making it possible that work in the private sector. If you are hungry, plant seeds and tend to the garden on some dirt that no one cares about, or go punch a government official in the face for creating a legal system that ran the community into starvation as this wouldn't happen under normal community focused efforts of groups that and build shelter and grow food. In jail they will feed you and shelter you, while there ask the guards about work or for help in teaching you to understand how to become a positive part of a collective of people who help each other by specializing in tasks making modern life possible. Food, clothing, ditch digging, painting, paving, picking, cleaning, guarding, etc. Offer help here and you can feed yourself even if you're an idiot.

Precisely my take away also. The congruence of liberty/negative right and entitlement/positive right made my legal case study classes much clearer. It would appear positive rights are given, but negative is not a right given per se but is something that cannot be taken away instead.

It's total gibberish! The only purpose of this idiocy is to dither and confuse, to obfuscate the plain meaning of words and make it seem more reasonable to abridge and infringe upon our rights. Liberties are Not “negative rights”! That's just asinine word salad. Vacationing in my yard is called trespassing. AAA services are Not a right! That's stupid! AAA is a contracted service that costs money! Rights do not cost anyone anything. He's very confused and has no understanding of the meaning of rights!

It's crap.

​@@TheBuddyLamawhy?

@@studentdrake There is no such thing as “negative liberty” or “negative rights”! Those are gibberish terms coined to confuse and obfuscate. They were spawned during the Obamination era to muddle the concepts and confuse the masses. It's what Leftists always do. Adding the word “negative” before liberty or rights only negates those things. To put it simply: “Negative freedom” is captivity, slavery! Know this: Rights either exist or they do not. Rights are inalienable and they are absolute, despite the claims of the Turnip-in-Chief and his meatpuppets of the media mafia. Leftist scum, all. “Rights” that are licensed, limited, restricted or regulated, bought or sold, are not Rights at all, but rather government owned permissions that can be revoked, curtailed, or otherwise usurped at the tyrant's whim.

Tom Forge and provide an injured party

Brilliant yet simple summation of the right to counsel. The only thing I wonder is, what happens if nobody wants to be a public defender? Would the govt force low performing law school grads to perform as counsel to indigent persons?

@@LeoWhalen1933 I believe the just solution is that adequate counsel is more important than any level of evidence brought by the prosecutor. Asking "what if no one wants to represent this person?" is the same as asking "what if we can't get a jury?" Both problems are the state's burden to solve, if the rule of law is to be maintained.

His original comment still holds right? So if the government wants to provide healthcare it can but it shouldn’t force us to pay taxes because it conflicts with our negative rights?

​@@obits3Maybe the "rule of law" is not all it's cracked up to be. It's not applied or enforced equally, if it were, Hunter Biden would be sharing a cage with "the Big Guy." That's just a couple examples, there millions more.

Ana, glad it was helpful!

1. No. 2. Yes. 3. There is no point in which they can violate your right to the lottery ticket. For instance, you can create your own lottery and viola... you can get your own lottery ticket.

@@surreal6643 very helpful! Thanks!

When you are told that "you have the right to remain silent," you can choose to stay silent. You are not obliged to stay silent, but remember: "Anything you say can be used against you in court."

@@aronruairi9927 thank you for clearing that up

Well said. In reality, rights have no value unless we're talking about a conflict between people. Conflicts are resolved with consensus and agreements. What some people call negative rights are just very popular conceptions of what some of those agreements should look like, based on the belief that rights are about individuals, not conflict resolution between people who disagree.

The right to private property is a negative right, not a positive one, because it doesn't place an obligation on someone else to fulfill.

@@afluffypinecone3577 If you claim large pieces of land as your property, it places an obligation on someone else to stay off that land. Whether or not this requires them to change their behavior remains a question. But it's absurd to deny that there's no obligation involved for others universally.

I can see this right quickly spreading to Brisket.

or the power you are willing to employ to enforce them

It's total gibberish! The only purpose of this idiocy is to dither and confuse, to obfuscate the plain meaning of words and make it seem more reasonable to abridge and infringe upon our rights. Liberties are Not “negative rights”! That's just asinine word salad. Vacationing in my yard is called trespassing. AAA services are Not a right! That's stupid! AAA is a contracted service that costs money! Rights do not cost anyone anything. He's very confused and has no understanding of the meaning of rights!

Not "trespassing" on your property could require a lot of effort for someone else. It's very clear that this is an example of a positive right - others are duty bound to "respect your property."

There is no such thing as a social contract.

actually it's been proven that social contract theory is illogical.

You can't logically conclude "I can control my labor therefore I own my labor." What you can sensibly say is "I can control my labor therefore I should be allowed to control my labor." And people are free to argue with that reasonable point.

100% Any time rights are *relevant* they are effectively *positive*. There's no meaning to talking about rights that don't obligate anyone to any particular behavior. It doesn't make sense to say that a person living on a deserted island has a right to property - there's no conflict to resolve by talking about rights.

Your entire post is contrary to the ideals the US was founded on. The framers recognized an important fact. Every time your proposed system happens, the people who decide whose rights are more important become corrupt and the result is the misery of the masses. If you make it a choice, then it will always eventually become evil. This is because the evil among us are so drawn to such positions of power. Additionally, your proposal fails logic. How can a group possess a right that any individual in the group does not have? It is wrong for me to steal from you. It is wrong for ANY individual in any group, no matter the size, to steal from you. Therefore, it is still wrong to steal from you even if a majority of the group votes to do so. None of the individuals have such a right, and they cannot, therefore, grant such a right to the group. Any attempt to circumvent this logic is equivalent to "might makes right", which is merely mob rule, and I think we can agree, such a system will be rife with violations. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT ABUSE OF POWER.

Interesting points. You said quite a bit there so I will only reply to your first paragraph for now (I can address your second objection later if you wish). 1) "Your entire post is contrary to the ideals the US was founded on": I kind of agree with you here but I don't believe that a constitution is the final moral authority (it is only the final legal authority). My point is about the morality and the metaphysical status of rights - not the legality or history of rights. 2) "...Every time your proposed system happens, the people who decide whose rights are more important become corrupt and the result is the misery of the masses. If you make it a choice, then it will always eventually become evil. This is because the evil among us are so drawn to such positions of power": I actually agree with most of what you say here. To put it another way, your point here actually supports mine. If rights are construed as final and absolute then if some tyrant drafts the constitution then the game is over. The rights are absolute. They can't be challenged. Whoever drafts the constitution first can draft it in a self serving way, couching it in the language of rights, and then simply throw away the legal key to change. And it gets worse because rights by their nature don't need to be justified. Proponents of rights simply say "X is wrong. Period". This means that a tyrant who tries to sustain his tyranny through appeal to his version of rights doesn't need to justify his claim. He simply says "X is the right thing to do" (the tyrant might say for example, "the nation has a right to the strongest leader, I have beaten the opposition in war, I am therefore stronger than the others, therefore I should be leader"). No, any "rights" must be shown to be a benefit to people. If they do benefit people then no one has any authority to change them and may be executed if they try to change the constitution simply to suit their private interests. So change to "rights" would not be easy on my account. Finally, in the States one can amend the constitution so on a practical level my understanding on how "rights" should be decided is in practice today in the States. That is, if a part of the constitution is harming people more than helping them it can be put up for a vote.

sgt7 As seen just a few comments down, valid rights can be logically derived, so your proposal that a Constitution is arbitrary is not a valid assumption. Here is the text of the comment I am referring to: Valid rights must be symmetrically equal and perfectly reciprocal. That eliminates any "rights" which act as obligations on others to perform positive acts, instead of obligations to not interfere with the actions of others. Essentially, we have Positive Rights and Negative Rights. You can't rightfully "earn" or "prove" the existence or validity of rights unless and until you have the right to earn or prove they exist or are valid. But if you have any such right to "earn" or "prove" your rights, from whence did any such right come? And if you answer "there's a special rule that says you have the right to do that,' then that raises the question of where that rule came from. There is no transitive closure to that infinite series of assertions of a special rule and questions regarding the justification for the assertions...unless your epistemological stance is that rights are to be assumed valid until falsified, instead of assumed false until justified. Science has the exact same problem, and solves it in an analogous way. a) We have rights as the only rational alternative to "might makes right," and b) if we don't initially assume we have all rights to do everything, we can never have any rights at all, because there's no way to start with "you have no rights at all" as your initial condition and ever end up with any rights. With no rights at all, you have no right to do anything, not even argue about what rights you have. And you can't even start with "you have these rights as axioms, but not others" because there is no transitive closure to the requests to justify those initial axiomatic rights (such as the right to prove you have yet more rights than those granted by axiomatic fiat.) And rights granted as unproven axioms not only rely on the premise that we have rights, but rely on the premise that we have those specific rights specified as axioms. In other words, it is untenable as a matter of fundamental epistemology to posit that the initial state of the world is that we have no rights, or that we have certain rights solely as unproven axioms. To put it another way: 1) The claim we have no rights is the claim that it is not rightful to assert any rights. But such a claim is a logical contradiction, because making such a claim is not rightful if no one has the right to make it. Since the claim that "no one has rights" results in a logical contradiction, the claim is false. Therefore, someone must have rights, because someone must have the right to make assertions or arguments concerning what rights are or are not valid. Even more succinctly: If we have no rights, then we have no right to do anything at all. So we would then have no right to claim we have no rights. Therefore, we must at least have the right to deny the validity of rights, but if we do, then it is false that we have no rights. 2) It is an empirical fact that it is in our rational self interest to interact with others. That is because a) cooperation and collaboration are demonstrably superior to war and conflict and b) cooperative and collaborative effort by groups of people can achieve goals and objectives that action by a lone individual cannot, or can achieve it more effectively. 3) It is also an empirical fact that it is extremely difficult or even impossible to effectively cooperate and collaborate with others without using "rules of engagement" that govern how interpersonal interactions should and should not occur. Such rules define what it is and is not "rightful" to do. Those are our "rights." And that's why we have them. The only alternative is "might makes right," and to operate as lone wolves who don't cooperate or collaborate. What other way is there to logically derive rights that doesn't fall afoul of the objection that the claim we have rights, or have specific rights, is just an unproven assertion? It is essential that everyone have symmetrically equal rights, and that rights be reciprocal. Otherwise, why would anyone agree to act according to rules that limit their actions, but not those of everyone else in precisely the same way? It is also essential that others have zero authority to veto your rights, and that you reciprocally have zero authority to violate theirs. Therefore, you can validly assert for yourself any rights you wish provided you reciprocally assert and respect symmetrically equal rights for everyone else, and can do so without logical contradiction. Any violation of the equality, symmetry or reciprocity requirement would create a logical contradiction. It would also justify rejection of the rules by anyone for whom those rules failed to provide equal liberty or equal protection. For any and every assertion of authority, its validity can be affirmed or denied by testing it to see whether the symmetrically equal authority can also be exercised by everyone else without logical contradiction. Any asserted authority that results in a logical contradiction when everyone exercises it equally, symmetrically and reciprocally is an invalid assertion of authority. Once all such invalid claims of authority have been thus eliminated, those that remain are the set of all valid rights. Example 1: You assert that you have the right to life--specifically meaning the right to not be killed by the positive action of others. Since all persons can exercise their individual right to life (defined as specified) without inhibiting that same right for anyone else, the right survives the attempt to falsify it by means of logical contradiction, and so must be accepted as a valid right. Example 2: Fred asserts that he has the right to a share of everyone else's income, at a rate he alone sets. Paul objects that if that's valid, then Paul has the symmetrically equal right to a share of Fred's income (which includes the income he claims as a percentage of Paul's income.) That logical contradiction (as evidenced by the infinite feedback loop created by the competing claims) falsifies Fred's assertion of the right to a share of Paul's income. We have only one right -- or an infinite number. The one fundamental human right is the right to live your life as you choose so long as you don’t infringe on the equal rights of others. So then, the only ethical obligation is to avoid violating the rights of others. That follows ineluctably from the fact that, to be valid, rights must be symmetrically equal and perfectly reciprocal. h/t Alan Lovejoy

Ok so you said quite a bit there. In order to give a full response I will just respond to your first question for now (viz., "What other way is there to logically derive rights that doesn't fall afoul of the objection that the claim we have rights, or have specific rights, is just an unproven assertion?"). The short answer is this: I don't believe in any rights. I am committed to using reason to determine the consequences that are best for our welfare and going with that. The longer answer is this: When I said that a tyrant can make up and enforce any self-serving right s/he wants I was not claiming that I would see this "right" as an actual right - the tyrant however would see this as a right. I was claiming that if we accept the notion of rights then we are hard pressed to argue the tyrant who claims his self serving right. Rights are pulled out of this air. The tyrant pulls the ones he wants in the same way good people pull the rights they want. Now you may say that valid rights must be equal and perfectly reciprocal. So the tyrant's rules would not pass as rights. Well the tyrant simply replies that he does not accept this premise. You are the one who says rights must be equal and reciprocal. The tyrant may be a sympathetic reader of Nietzsche and believe that might is right, that the powerful must rule the weak in order for the human race to improve. Earlier I was not claiming that we have the right to make up rights. I know I gave that impression but I meant something different when I used "rights" here. By claiming that we should decide what rights we accept I meant something closer to guidelines (I didn't specify this because it wasn't central to my point at the time). "Rights" requires a metaethical view that claims that there are moral laws that are independent of consequences and exist objectively (in some mysterious realm). I don't believe in any rights. I'm an ethical nihilist. I think that if people use their reason to determine what would bring about the best consequences for humanity the welfare of all will be increased (when I say "welfare" I mean it to include all the goods we need including freedom, love, health, meaning, material things etc.). Considering what is best for us through reasoning about the consequences of our actions is what will give us the best chance of bring about the consequences we want.

sgt7 Without rights, neither you nor anyone else has the right to make a decision for anyone else. You start from a false assumption. Moreover, you CANNOT ethically violate anyone because you deem another more important, even groups. History PROVES that fallacy leads to genocide and atrocities committed in the name of "the greater good". There is no such thing as a greater good. lfb.org/the-myth-of-the-greater-good/

They didn't have to do anything so no right exists as no action made on apparent recognition of the existence of something, the right only exists here for the guy to offend someone as offense is subjective and is not a freedom or action that can be carried out only a reaction to an action that a person had the right to act out.

They have the right to react and display they are offended, and thus human interaction is legal.

It's a positive right because it requires the action of an individual - the attorney being provided. It also falls under a legal right, as opposed to a natural right.

@@Johnny_Cash_Flow but is a Jewish defender under obligation to defend a neo-Nazi based on his right to an attorney. No.

@@wxman5401 Three years later... what's your point?

That's a position that vegans can reasonably take but a lot of other people would need to explain why they are allowed to kill all kinds of animals, but not people.

@@someonenotnoone Agreed. We need sentiocentrism. We need to ditch the anthropocentrism.

No they are not, having the choice to do or not do so something does not inhibit your capability into consensually obtaining an obligation of the other party. All it means is that you also have an obligation to that party in the form of exchange or contract. Even your example doesn't at all confirm the negative right is antagonistic to the positive right. It only confirms the positive is antagonistic because of not only providing for it by taxes, but also means lack of true scrutiny of such an institution.

"There should be a balance between positive and negative rights." How far does this go? Because if for every negative right you can think of, you "balance" it with some positive thing you can scheme up, then there ends up being no negative rights at all.

+Bushrod Rust Johnson By being logic and by thinking outside of stupid ideologies. By thinking what's practically good for the people. Look at Europe.

***** The state has never possessed the competence or the objectivity to direct so many outcomes at once. Thinking it does is illogical. Desiring it to do so is immoral. Every example of the state attempting to direct individual, non-coercive choice and voluntary interaction produces horrible, foreseeable "unintended" consequences and corruption. The motives of statist politicians and voters are entirely hostile and selfish. European states are mostly collectivist shitholes with stagnant economies and constricted personal freedom.

Bushrod Rust Johnson Oh, really?... We have "constricted personal freedom"? Please, tell me more...

It's helpful to keep in mind that these are in fact conceptions. When you say "rights can only be negative" this is because of your conception - what you believe. It just so happens that I have a positive conception of rights and can't conceive of how anything anyone considers a right exists without privieleges, entitlements, or contracts. All rights convey an expectation of behavior - an implied agreement, a contract.

@@someonenotnoone rights can only be negative because equal positive rights for everyone is an internally inconsistent idea like a square-circle.

@@YashArya01 equal negative rights for everyone is also internally inconsistent, because negative rights, just like positive rights, are not free. We can't maximize one person's negative rights without minimizing someone else's. If one person claims all the land on this planet for themselves, no one else can. And yet adherents of negative rights believe land applies to this concept of negative rights not causing any kind of obligation, cost, or harm to others.

@@someonenotnoone I think you're confused about the basic distinction between negative and positive conception of rights.

​@@YashArya01 It's not confusion, it's skepticism. It appears to me that this distinction is one of perspective, and therefore, not performing objective categorization of any kind. It doesn't describe two *kinds* of rights, it describes two *views* of rights. In the real world rights cannot be meaningfully categorized or measured like this, you can just argue for your own opinions from these perspectives. This position is shared by Oxford philosophy professor Henry Shue, who further argues that this is a harmful view of rights, because it leads people to believe they can do the right thing by doing nothing. I'm sure if he hasn't gotten past this "confusion" it's not just me who is skeptical that this is a useful, meaningful, or valid way to talk about rights.

Nonsense

You'd be wrong

@@afluffypinecone3577 But they'd have just as much evidence as you. And in that case, the more reasonable assumption is that there are no rights.

Property is the result of efforts that are equal to a proportion of ones limited single life and are protected because what may have taken generations to establish and build isn't stolen or destroyed by those who have no right to do so for reasons of they desired to. Property doesn't infringe on your own efforts, your rights can be infringed on by other that seize your property, or otherwise what we would call the embodiment of your efforts that you built without violation of anyone Else's rights. What is you're existence is used by you and how you decide to use it. Otherwise drifters with nothing to offer to exchange both parties find equal in value could walk into your home with muddy boots eat your food and take your stuff without your permission and why not it was never yours right because obviously that is how you got a stocked fridge plumbing nice cloths and nothing of sentimental value exists anywhere for anyone. Also property rights infringe upon the guy who dumps toxic waste out up the street of where you live that gave you cancer and killed your dog when you took them to court. They also infringe on the guy that needed to dump his pile of AOL floppy diskettes somewhere and wanted to bury your driveway cause he felt it was the perfect place to make a landfill. When your walking in the park and set your bag down for a second and someone walks off with it cause they just found it on the ground next to you then be complicit as it was never your's, you own nothing, and stuff you once traded your property for(currency, that's representing your efforts and time spent at work or the value of something you sold to another who offered that value in solid rock but you couldn't carry $500 of solid rock around casually.) was never yours. It belongs to all of those who decided they want it and should get it and exchange nothing of equal value for taking it from you.

Property *always* infringes on the negative rights of others. That is, it always prevents others from doing something they could otherwise do if not for your implied threat of violence (either yours or that of the po-po, it doesn't really matter). Right? Whether and when you think that violent curtailing of others' rights is justified is a separate question. But simply classifying rights as positive or negative is not enough to determine whether they are a good idea. In my opinion, the positive/negative rights distinction is seldom useful.

I agree property is important. But, given that this curtailment of the negative rights of others (by violently restricting their behavior toward our property) is so essential and one we're not willing to give up, doesn't it seem like classifying something as a negative right isn't of much use? OK, so X is a negative right. What does that mean? You should do some reading about alternative property paradigms. Sometimes we think the only alternative to the current capitalist system is no property rights at all. But there are lots of choices in between. Google mutualism.

No, you're wrong. Property ownership is a negative right, but it does not infringe on negative rights of others, as others hold no legal claim to it. Me owning land in California does not infringe on your rights living in Florida. As far as land claiming is concerned, those laws date back centuries and are rooted in English Common Law. Negative rights state that a person owns their labor and is entitled to life, liberty, and property. For more information, research the Non-Aggression Principle and read John Locke's Second Treatise.

I disagree. When you say you "own" land in California, what does that mean? Are there things I cannot do once you own the land but that I could do before you owned it? What about owning a shovel? What does that mean?

Because Hobby Lobby wasn't denying anything to anybody. They were simply not providing something. Did you watch the video?

***** Since when are you entitled to anything other than your wage from your employer?

Businesses have the right to do whatever they want, including setting wage amounts and coverage of healthcare they provide. Stop being a fascist.