Talk:Negative and positive rights/Positive right talk archive

This is a record of the old Talk:Positive right page. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Positive liberty merger?

Hrmm. The same as Positive Liberty? Evercat 21:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Actually, there seems to be some kind of mixup. Subjective right correspond Positive liberty, while Objective rights correspond Negative liberty. Somebody has confused the terms and has taken "positive" from "positive liberty" and "right" from "subjective rights". 213.243.155.254 4 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

No, the article is correct. There are what are called negative and positive "rights" --standard terminology. Maybe some call these objective and subjective rights (Objectivists maybe?) RJII 4 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

No, "subjective" and "objective" rights are terms used in legal theory, please make a search with Google, and compare to the results you get with "positive" and "negative" rights (excluding of course the articles of Wikipedia and its clones.)

Libertarians

Libertarians do support positive rights, they just don't support forcing others to realize them. Libertarians support the right to education, that is, individuals may pursue an education, so long as teachers aren't forced to provide it. Legitimate positive rights include the freedom to pursue a wide range of activities, but forced labor or subsidation (taxes) to realize a right is not legitimate.

A right that isn't guaranteed is not a right. Saying "I support your right to an education, but I won't do anything to provide you with an education if you can't afford it" is like saying "I support your right to life, but I won't do anything if that maniac over there decides to blow your brains off". Also, libertarians seem to have this strange notion that the more "freedom", the better - no matter if the increased "freedom" makes life a hell of a lot worse for huge numbers of people. To use your own example, would you allow a doctor to refuse to help a black patient on grounds of his skin color? Would you allow teachers to refuse to teach children of a certain religion? It's pretty clear that you do consider it perfectly OK for poor children to remain illiterate if their parents can't pay for their education, or for poor dying people to be left to rot on the street if they can't pay for private healthcare services. If that's your version of "freedom", then it's a "freedom" not worth having, thank you very much! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very true Mihnea. It often wonder how many 'libertarians' became so when they got their first tax bill and, as their jaw hit the floor, it dawned on them - "I know I've used all this great free stuff in the past, but I didn't expect to *pay* for it. Therefore I need to find an ideology that says it was all wrong because otherwise I'll seem like a freeloader." --Nobby stiles 21:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, a right is a right to action, not to the object of that action. Thus, as each individual exists solely for his own sake, no one has any authority to compel one to provide for another, whatever the reason or the outcomes. Kurt Weber 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Taxes are not the bill once you've payed for something that's it for someone to come along and say "Okay now you have to pay an extra percentage to me simply because you bought it that's theft. And despite what liberals tell you freedom is not forcing others to provide for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.232.182 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wacky BS

However, critics of the libertarian view may point out that private property itself can only exist while there is a government to defend it. Thus, it is reasonable to ask people to give something back in return for the government defense of their property. This comes in the form of taxation, which can then be used to provide for people's positive rights as well.

Hahaha, yeah right. That is flat out wrong, as well as being POV. Try breaking into your local militia headquarters sometime, and you'll get an idea of how citizens defend their own freedom. Mexico is a perfect example, ordinary citizens are often too afraid of the police to call them (they are often worse than the criminals) and so the enact mob justice. Pro-Vigilatism = pro-freedom! You only have the rights you are prepared to defend. Etc... Keep the wacky POV's out of the main article space, or cite an expert who holds them, tnx. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 16:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Hope you're not using anything you can't personally defend then, dude... Nobby stiles 01:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can't defend is the indefensible... i.e. govt. oppression ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wacky POV? I don't know which world you live in, Sam ("local militia headquarters"????), but over here in the real world, we have something called the rule of law, and our rights are protected by the government. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One can argue that if you have to defend your property yourself, you don't have a right to property. A right, as oposed to brute force, only appears if you can count on someone (or everyone) defending it for you. I.e. property is a positive right. Diego Moya 16:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you even realize the implications of your argument? By your reasoning then, every negative right is a positive right; for you there is no distinction, there is only "might makes right" (as positive rights can only flow from coercion). Allow me to change a few words in your post: "One can argue that if you have to defend your {life} yourself, you don't have a right to {life}. A right, as oposed to brute force, only appears if you can count on someone (or everyone) defending it for you. I.e. {life} is a positive right." The existence of negative rights has nothing to do with enforcement. If a government tortures a person to death, we say that this person's negative rights were violated, not that this person failed to defend their life. Negative rights are inherent to the condition of being human. ~peiper

"One can argue that if you have to defend your {life} yourself, you don't have a right to {life}". Yes, that's how I see how the world works ("how it is"), appart from ethical consideration ("how it should be"). But then I don't believe that rights are inherent properties of humans (like "size" or "age") but social constructs created and defended for convenience. Liberals and libertarians are people who (in theory) think that (some) rights should be applied to all humans for equal, but there are other differing views on which rights do exist and to whom apply. Positive and negative rights differ in that you are either provided with something (education) or protected from being attacked by the action of others (life and property), but both require a guarantee. That's why I believe that property only is effective when enforced by someone. Diego Moya 13:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have to defend yourself from an attack it doesn't means you don't have a right to live. It just means that you're defending your right to live. A right is not the act of defense. It's a moral or legal entity, solely. It comes with, nor needs no, guarantee of protection. You said yourself that rights are social constructs. Well, if you and I contract to not kill each other then a socially-constructed right to not be killed has been established, correct? If you don't defend your life and I kill you, it doesn't mean you didn't have a right to live. Rather, all it would mean is that I violated your right to live. It's simply prudent to protect rights --otherwise, what's the point of establishing them? RJII 17:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea, you seem to lack an understanding of what it means to have a right ..see talk in the negative right article. RJII 19:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly the impression I have about you... perhaps we should call in a neutral moderator? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the Negative right article, abridging someone speech is unlawful - so the right to free speech is protected by law. So rights need to be enforced to be rights, even negative ones. Diego Moya 16:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A right amounts to just something written on paper in legal terminology or a morality in someone's head. A right doesn't have to be defended for it to exist. If someone steals your car then obviously your property wasn't defended. It's not that you didn't have a right to keep it; it's just that someone violated that right. RJII 17:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So everything is a right, as long as somebody somewhere thinks it's a right? Isn't there a way to distinguish "real" rights from pretended ones? If two people think that they have the right to the same property, who of them is right? By your definition, both of them would. Diego Moya 17:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Property is essentially the fruit of your labor. Suppose one happened upon a piece of unclaimed land. If that person were to mix their labor (which they own and direct) with that land, to grow crops, the person then owns those crops and as an extension, the land. The crops, as an extension of that person's labor, are therefore at the command of that person. That person is then free to trade or otherwise make contracts regarding that property. If another person makes a claim against that property, their claim would be false as none of the property was mixed with their labor. This of course is very base property theory, but it is easy to extrapolate it. ~peiper

Exactly. If a law says that both people have the right to the same property then they both have that legal right. Of course that would be absurd, so governments try not to make conflicting laws. That's legal rights. Now, in terms of moral rights ..which maybe you call "real rights" that wouldn't happen, because presumably, an absurdity like that can't exist (you would disagree if you're a moral relativist, or if a moral nihilist you would say that "real rights" lack existence). But, to reiterate, it's true that rights can exist regardless of whether they're defended, even if they're being violated. Freedom, on the other hand, is a different story. RJII 17:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between a right and a wish, then?... I would say that a right can exist if it is violated because someone tried to defend it and couldn't, but not when there even isn't anyone trying to defend it. Diego Moya 23:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How does on distinguish a right from a wish? Negative rights essentially entail being free from coercion. One may covet anothers property, but to steal it be an act of coercion upon that person. Rather if one covets anothers property and offers a contract to that person to trade for the property, that person is open to accept or reject the contract freely without coercion. ~peiper

I have always found that part of the theory contradictory. What happen if someone doesn't agree with your definition of property (mixing your labor with an unclaimed object) or doesn't agree that this process has taken place?. The newcomer doesn't recognize the first one's property, nor has signed any contract with him. So if the first claimer of property uses force to protect his claims (thus preventing the second one from using the object), how can you say that this use of force is not coercion? unless "property" claims are exempted of coercion by definition. I'm thinking of squatters as an example here. Diego Moya 12:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying if one person just assumes that everything on earth is his property, and someone else assumes something becomes property by mixing his labor with it, then this latter person is using coercion against the property of the former person when he claims something through labor. Well, that that boils down to whose property claim is rightful. If it's correct that something can be someone's property just by announcing it, then it's correct that you're initiating coercion against the property of one who has claimed the world as his. On other hand, if it's correct that something is not property until one mixes his labor with it, then he's not initiating coercion against the property of the guy who claims everything is his. Now, you said in a paragraph above that rights were social constructs, so this natural rights argument doesn't matter --in your estimation neither guy would be correct --rights are social constructs. If that's the case, then the guy claiming the property by mixing his labor with it is certainly not initiating coercion against the property of the guy who claims everything --since property doesn't exist yet. If natural rights don't exist, then coercion against the property of another cannot occur until property rights are established by social construction (contract) --which would include specifying what the method of acquiring property is to be. RJII 17:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So if the police happen to go on strike, you no longer have rights? Of course you do. They're written right there in law. (Therefore, you're legally justified in defending yourself from an attacker if the police aren't around.) RJII 16:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Negative rights exist whether or not they are codified by a government. The victims of the countless despotisms will attest to this. The keyword is inalienable: "Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" ~peiper

The concept of "right" is a broad one. For some people (idealists) it is what should be. For others, (pragmatists) it is what can be. Sam Spade 09:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You gotta fight for your right... to PARTY! Sam Spade 10:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if I point out the obvious, why are you so opposed to it?

Ok, RJII, let's say you're right and my statement is a "waste" because it points out the obvious. So what? I mean, what are we actually wasting? Right now, we're just wasting each other's time with a pointless argument. What do you have to lose if you let me write things that point out the obvious? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Positive Action?"

"However, in practice, the enforcement of a negative right also requires positive action - for example, the right to be secure in one's home implies that some action must be taken, either by the home owner or by an agency such as the government, to repel someone who attempts breaking and entering."

Is the introduction of the phrase "also requires positive action" meant to confuse the uninitiated reader? Is this an attempt to falsely equate negative and positive rights? Why is this phrase even included?

In any case this sentence is an representative of a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes a negative right. The phrase "for example, the right to be secure in one's home implies that some action must be taken" exhibits this ignorance. The reality is, for a person to be secure in their home, another individual must not invade that home. There is no implication. Any discussion of "enforcement" belongs in a social contract theory thread.

In short, this sentence should be removed.

I agree. It's bizarre to say the least. Minhea is trying to make some kind of point. I haven't been able to figure out what it is. It looks to me like he just doesn't understand what a negative or positive right is. And, it makes the articles look really dumb. RJII 17:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A Critique?

"However, critics of the libertarian view may point out that private property itself can only exist while there is a government to defend it. Thus, it is reasonable to ask people to give something back in return for the government defense of their property. This comes in the form of taxation, which can then be used to provide for people's positive rights as well."

Firstly, this is not a libertarian thread, so why is a "critique" of the "libertarian view" being raised?

Secondly, regarding the phrase: "... private property itself can only exist while there is a government to defend it." Why has the author stated this as a fact? Many social contract theorists would disagree. They would argue that negative rights are enjoyed by virtue of the state of being human, not by the state of being governed. They would also assert these rights exist whether a government chooses to recognize them or not. That, when proper governments are formed, they are formed in order to better secure the negative liberties enjoyed by man. The primary purpose of these social contracts being the neutral mediation of disputes.

Yes, this is another Minhea edit. Besides that, it looks like he doesn't realize that a rights can be a human construct. For example, if two people agree to not initiate violence against the other, then they've established individual rights. He seems to think that if no one is around to prevent them from violating the contract that the rights don't exist, which is wrong. They continue to exist so long as the two continue to refrain from attacking the other, per the contract. RJII 17:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Thus, it is reasonable to ask people to give something back in return for the government defense of their property." Is this thread a discussion on the legitimacy of taxation or is it a discussion regarding positive rights?

"This comes in the form of taxation ..." Is the author referring to indirect or direct taxation? One is compatible with negative rights, while the other is not. In any case, these statements belong in a thread on taxation.

Proceeding with caution

I'm deeply interested in basic rights and competing arguments for positive rights or in the human rights literature (welfare rights). Though, I see references to Shue and Nozick, Gewirth is notably missing, as is balance to the basically American libertarian conceptions of rights. In short, I think the neutral point of view sought, is sadly lacking. I'd gladly contribute, but want to know how best to proceed given the seemly *religiously* libertarian contributors. There are arguments and justifications that can start from libertarian conceptions of right (Nozick) and proceed to arguments for positive (welfare) rights in advanced, wealthy, societies (Shue, Gewirth). There is some [elasticity] when it comes to welfare or positive rights that flows from the actualy economic conditions of a given state or society.

Regarding how to distinguish a right from a wish, Alan Gewirth (Reason and Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978)) and Henry Shue (Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980)) effectively argue that expectations create obligation. If someone is drowning, and it is within the ability of a person near the pool to save them, the person drowning has an expectation that she or he will be helped if it's within the ability of a person nearby. The obligation on the helping person is created by the expectation that both the person being helped and the person who has the potential of needing help in fact experience. Aasgaard 01:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The two sides can never understand each other

This article is very interesting. It shows the irreconcilable mindset difference between the W.A.S.P. (the anglo-saxon race) and the "rest of the world".

Most people in the world understand that homo sapiens sapiens originated as a community being. The cavemen could not survive as individuals but as a tribe and private property did not exist among the cavemen as scientific research has shown long ago. The private property is an artifical invention that does not stem from the law of nature at all, unlike the brotherhood of man (as in humankind). Elders educated the young even among the cavemen when private property was in several dozen millenia distant future. So it is stupid to claim general education infringes on your right to own.

The anglo-saxon in contrast consider themselves individuals (self-gods) and hold private property is more basic than the community (brotherhood of men). Their values are centered on economic value, which defines the moral guidances. It is controversial, because economy can only exist in a community, obviously, but the anglo-saxon consider communities and societies as something of secondary importance and created only on the wish of individuals. This is against established science as all isolated people have shown mental decay in a few years, even those washed ashore with treasures from a shipwreck, therefore community is more important than property.

I think the proper solution should be to create us.en.wikipedia.org and restoftheworld.en.wikipedia.org and issues where the anglo-saxon think radically different than the rest of the world could be described differently on the two sites. The main en.wikipedia.org ould only yankee turn right, europeans turn left to see the article of your like. This would prevent edit wars and the parties could remain comfortably ignorant of the others ideas.

   - What does it have to do with race?

I find it hard to believe that private property didn't exist among cavemen. For an individual to consider the product of his labor as belonging to him seems to be very natural. Collective property seems like it would be more "artifical." RJII 23:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe property as in "this belongs to me because I'm able to protect the product of my labor with my fists" is very natural, but when did it turned into property as a right? (i.e. the idea that "is a matter of justice than others don't try to take away the product of my labor from me - morally they shouldn't try to do it" as a general belief), which is what is being discussed in the "positive" and "negative right" articles. On the other hand collective property (as in "this land belongs to us because we live here and our ancestors lived here") is a belief supported by the natural sense of belonging to a tribe, even when the "we're able to protect the products of our land with our fists" fails. Actually, tribal property seems much more logical than individual property to a family of hunters-gatherers; individual labor only would turn into the idea of a "product" much later, when the complex techniques of agriculture and farming became widespread. Diego Moya 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious aspect need to be addressed.

>For instance, if right to life is recognized, this would imply that if a citizen was not able to produce or >obtain food and health care for himself then others would be compelled to provide them for him.

To deny this is equal to atheism, because God originally tasked the men as quoted in the Old Script: "Go, spread and populate all of the Earth". The Old testament is the Holy Book for the majority of mankind.

In contrast, it is an established matter of fact that not all areas of the Earth are suitable for human habitation with self-sustaining. Therefore it is only possible to obey God's command, if people in good places are obliged to help the people in bad places.

This article is in a bad way

This article needs some serious revising. There are questions barely addressed: Whose idea is this? Where did it originate? How is it regarded within the academic community? Where are the references? The problems with this article aren't surprising when you see the comments on this page. There are two sides, and both seem to be making no attempts at any kind of rapprochement. If you can't do it, find people that can. Wikipedia isn't the place to put your own views and to settle debate, it is a central repository for knowledge. Go and find what is written about this subject elsewhere and present the summary here without emotion or fanfare. If you can't do that, go and find another subject that you're not so wrapped up in.

--Gantlord 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And getting worse: this is turning into an uncited manifesto. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)