Negative and positive rights

Well the concept keeps on getting brought up in debates in On Topic,

The wikipedia article on it[1] is a little a is a confusing, but it seem to highlight the difference between inaction an active actions and in passive inaction. So the right to health care is a positive right, while the right not be stabbed is negative one. That's is the general gist of it right?

Edit: And thanks to who ever changed my original title,

edited 28th Apr '11 3:40:24 AM by joeyjojo

A negative right is something that cannot be taken from you. You have the negative right to free speech; no one can prevent you from speaking your mind (but they don't, for example, have to provide you airtime on TV to get your message out — if you want that, you have to get it yourself). A positive right is something that will be given to you. You have the positive right to education: the government will provide you with an education, no matter what.

This reminds me, on more than one occasion here I've seen statements that could be taken to the effect of "eliminate the negative rights, provide the positive". For example, eliminate the right to bear arms but provide a right to a secure society via expansive police force. (You all know my opinion on the matter, I'd rather have an automatic rifle than a competent police force.)

edited 28th Apr '11 6:45:20 AM by MajorTom

Security is a negative right, regardless of whether it's provided by gun ownership or the police.

I'm not following the concept of a negative right. There are rights that should not be taken from someone, but there's nothing inherent in the laws of physics that prevents them from being taken away. That's one of the reasons we build societies—to prevent strong people from taking away the rights of weak people like me.

I think the core distinction is between rights ensured through government action and rights ensured through lack of government action.

A negative right is a guarantee of something that won't be done. You have the negative right to life — no one will kill you. A positive right is a guarantee of something that will be done. You have the positive right to education — you will be sent to school.

A negative right means that that right is allowed and no one can disallow it, but they won't necessarily deliver it, either. A positive right is something that you will get, and if you can't provide it for yourself, it will be provided for you.

Free speech is a negative right. You can say whatever you want and no one can stop you, but you have to spread your message yourself. If free speech was a positive right, then you would be provided a platform for your speech (free commercial time on TV, ad space in newspapers, etc).

The amount of people it takes to enforce these rights is irrelevant to whether the right in question is positive or negative.

Note, there are some manifestations of positive actions regarding negative rights, for example, many communities have a free speech time at meetings and the like.

There may be some negative actions for positive rights, but I can't think of any off-hand.

In general, a negative right is something you can provide yourself, as long as no one interferes with you. It equates to freedom from interference. That's why Free Speech is a negative right. A positive right is something someone else has to give you. It equates to a right to some sort of treatment- universal education, or health care.

In practice, since people usually have to collaborate to protect their negative rights, and individuals usually have to show some initiative to take advantage of their positive rights, there is less difference between them than theory makes it appear.

Indeed. That's how the government functions; only the government may lawfully regulate the citizens' access to their rights.

A positive right to life, then, would mean that life-saving interventions (giving food to starving people, free medical care to sick people, etc) were mandated.

I think that's a positive right to life-saving measures, but you've got the basic idea.

No, he's right. A negative right to life means that people won't kill you. A positive right to life mean that people will prevent you from dying.

Everyone believes in positive rights (I'd fight to protect my family and friends from dying). The only difference is who they trust to enforce them.

Well, technically that's only an example of positive rights if you are defending them because you believe they have a right to expect this of you- as opposed to because you love them so much you prefer death to watching them be killed. That's a freely given gift, not a right.

I don't believe in most positive rights.

Although I'm oversimplifying a bit, in general strong support for negative rights are associated with a political ideology that emphasizes personal liberty over social justice, while support for positive rights is more associated with an attempt to level the playing field for people who are either being exploited (the poor, minorities) or are at a disadvantage compared to other members of society for no fault of their own (the disabled, the elderly).