Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Differences Between Negative and Positive Rights
The Shadow Review ^ | 5/15/2013 | David Focil

Posted on 05/16/2013 3:42:29 PM PDT by d_focil

One of the problems with positive rights though, which conservatives and libertarians tend to point out, is that in order for them to mean anything in practice, someone else will inherently have to provide the means by which they are given. For example, if you have the right to health-care, then a doctor or nurse will have to at some point, render that care. Either the medical practitioner will have to be paid for his or her rendering of care, or he or she will have to be compelled to render it. This is manifestly different from a negative right such as the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure, where all that is needed for the right to be in effect, is for the government not to search you without a warrant.

From a social contract point of view, all government is established in order to save people from having to protect each and every right themselves through their own wills, wills that if met with superior force, would likely be unable to stop private assaults upon their liberty. Yet it is plausible that in extending this social contract beyond the most basic of rights, we run into complications that are not easy to resolve.

(Excerpt) Read more at shadowreview.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: AMERICA - The Right Way!!
KEYWORDS: entitlements; liberals; liberty; negativerights; positiverights; spending
Liberals dont really understand that what they sometimes call "rights" are not really rights at all, at least not in a way that makes logical sense when compared to something like freedom of speech.
1 posted on 05/16/2013 3:42:29 PM PDT by d_focil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: d_focil

Postive rights, as defined by the Left, require a third party to be enslaved.

You can’t have a right to housing, food, or medicine, without a carpenter, farmer, or doctoer having no right to refuse their services.


2 posted on 05/16/2013 3:50:14 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: d_focil

Bookmark


3 posted on 05/16/2013 3:50:46 PM PDT by Zeneta (No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Indeed. Or a “right” to have everyone else agree with you and do everything you want them to do. Positive “rights” are no rights at all for anyone except the state.


4 posted on 05/16/2013 4:23:30 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: d_focil

The “Rights” guaranteed by the Constitution-—predate the Constitution—they are Natural Rights from God.....(comes from Natural Law Theory which originated in Ancient Greece.)

Most “Rights” that the Democrats are for, are Satanic Rights-—ones that are unconstitutional-—for they come from Satan, not God.....the right to contraception, to sodomize others, to steal food and property from others through government (welfare). These are not “Rights”-—in fact, they are unconstitutional for they make slaves of others or promote Vice-—which is Unjust Laws.

All Just Laws have to be Reasoned-—all the laws Democrats posit are arbitrary—(unequal) and unconstitutional. You can’t have arbitrary laws be Just Law. As St. Thomas stated (and Founders/John Jay agreed) all Laws that cease to be Just are not laws.


5 posted on 05/16/2013 4:33:50 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: d_focil

US Constitutional rights are RECOGNIZED to have been endowed to all people, upon birth, by our Creator

as such, i woukd have all my rights ... while alone on a desert island

it’s tough to have rights that require the force capitulation of others... when there are no others.

progressive concept fails basic test


6 posted on 05/16/2013 4:40:22 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: d_focil
Conservatives don't seem to understand that there are different kinds of rights. From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

Right: 10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.

7 posted on 05/16/2013 5:23:54 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

“You can’t have a right to housing, food, or medicine, without a carpenter, farmer, or doctoer having no right to refuse their services.”

You could provide housing, food and medicine your own self.


8 posted on 05/16/2013 5:26:57 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Amen.


9 posted on 05/16/2013 5:28:20 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sten

“US Constitutional rights are RECOGNIZED to have been endowed to all people, upon birth, by our Creator.”

Is this the exception that proves the rule: “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”?


10 posted on 05/16/2013 5:33:29 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

how would you commit a crime... alone on a desert island?


11 posted on 05/16/2013 5:53:51 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
You could provide housing, food and medicine your own self.

Of course, which is why we should all have the freedom to work and the right not to be forced to provide goods and services to others.

12 posted on 05/16/2013 7:04:10 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: d_focil

“Negative Rights” are things that people cannot do to you, or cannot stop you from doing.

“Positive Rights” are things someone has give to you when you want them.

If you are living in a country with “positive rights” you are living in an authoritarian or totalitarian society, because the labor and property of others are being seized to provide these “rights.”


13 posted on 05/16/2013 7:08:52 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
You could provide housing, food and medicine your own self.

You could try but you might run head on into construction unions, building codes, zoning regulations, building inspectors, the food and drug administration. There are relatively few federal laws in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of federal regulations that impinge on virtually every facet of your life. These regulations are written by faceless bureaucrats, away from the glare of public scrutiny and debate. They are unelected and show no responsibility to the people whose lives they impact. There is not realistic way to evade the federal regulatory zombies. They are tireless and will continue to hunt you down lest you actually create something of value to yourself and others.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis

Regards,
GtG

14 posted on 05/16/2013 10:10:36 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sten

“how would you commit a crime... alone on a desert island?”

Trespassing if the desert island is private property.

Illegal immigration if the desert island is within the territory of some nation.

And of course murder, if you murdered everyone who arrived on the desert island with you and that’s why you’re alone.


15 posted on 05/17/2013 2:39:41 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

the ‘alone on a desert island’ hypothetical means you’re the only person around. no one owns the property and the assumption was you didn’t kill everyone.. you spontaneously appeared fully grown on the island on a barren planet


16 posted on 05/17/2013 3:32:30 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sten
the ‘alone on a desert island’ hypothetical means you’re the only person around. no one owns the property and the assumption was you didn’t kill everyone.. you spontaneously appeared fully grown on the island on a barren planet

Then “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...” wouldn't exist. There is no state, there is no district, there is no crime, there is no public, there is not trial.

And that makes it hard to justify that:

US Constitutional rights are RECOGNIZED to have been endowed to all people, upon birth, by our Creator

as such, i woukd have all my rights ... while alone on a desert island

17 posted on 05/17/2013 3:58:45 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

the US Constitution recognizes your rights were bestowed upon you, by your Creator... long before any civil govt existed

courts and trials are used by man to sort out issues between the citizens.


18 posted on 05/17/2013 7:46:54 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sten
courts and trials are used by man to sort out issues between the citizens.

Agreed. And courts and trials are established by man as part of civil government which governments are established by man.

That makes it hard to understand how the US Constitution can recognize your right "...to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...” as having been bestowed upon you, by your Creator... long before any civil govt existed to establish courts and trials to be used by man to sort out issues between the citizens.

19 posted on 05/17/2013 10:22:18 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

The the right to a speedy and fair trail is an extension of the fundamental right to life, and the right not to be deprived of it, along with your other basic rights. The constitution recognizes this but does so within the specific context of the common law tradition where jury trials evolved over time as the preferred method of settling disputes fairly.

This is the same with many aspects of our form of government, where tradition outlines the specific way in which a fundamental right is to be protected.

The topic is interesting, because Edmund Burke argued that all our rights are essentially traditional in nature and that it makes little sense for a country with no history of respecting them and enshrining them in law, to have a revolution and all of a sudden have liberty.

This is why he simultaneously rejected the validity of the French revolution while accepting the American one.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-political-philosophy-edmund-burke-267253.html?cat=37


20 posted on 05/18/2013 2:47:23 PM PDT by d_focil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

the rights existed long before the govt.

the governmental framework was established to help sort issues between citizens and promote an orderly society.

you have a ‘right’ to a speedy trial as the govt is expected to sort out the issues as part of its duties.

in this case, the ‘right’ is expecting the govt, an entity we all pay for, to do its job.


21 posted on 05/19/2013 8:13:28 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sten

“the rights existed long before the govt.”

Are you saying that the inhabitants of the Americas had “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...” before Columbus arrived in the Americas? Before the Americas were known as the Americas?

Are you saying that the Jews who wandered in the desert for 40 years, led by Moses, had “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”?

Are you saying that the people who built Stonehenge 4-5 thousand years ago had “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”?


22 posted on 05/19/2013 10:08:08 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

if you believe in the US Constitution ... yes

the rights existed... they were just denied / repressed by the govt at the time. this would also be true today in other countries

again... if you believe in the Constitution... which doesn’t sound like you do


23 posted on 05/20/2013 4:46:42 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sten

“again... if you believe in the Constitution... which doesn’t sound like you do”

I believe in the Constitution; I don’t believe you.


24 posted on 05/20/2013 8:21:54 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

really.

were you endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights? do you think he just started dishing them out in 1776?

of course not... and that’s the whole point.


25 posted on 05/20/2013 12:31:27 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sten

“were you endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights?”

Yes

“do you think he just started dishing them out in 1776?”

No

“of course not... and that’s the whole point.”

Disagree.


26 posted on 05/20/2013 1:43:16 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson