[alexander_busek]

A negative right is one you naturally have. No one needs to do anything for you to have that right. It simply exists outside of being infringed.

Examples, please!

You have repeatedly provided examples of positive rights... I'm still waiting for even ONE concrete example of a negative right.

The right to breathe? Means nothing if someone else can smother me to death, and no one (the State, etc.) is required to intercede to prevent me from being smothered.

Regards,

[Svartalfiar]

You have repeatedly provided examples of positive rights... I'm still waiting for even ONE concrete example of a negative right.

The right to breathe? Means nothing if someone else can smother me to death, and no one (the State, etc.) is required to intercede to prevent me from being smothered.

You don't seem to understand the core concept.. By your logic/definition, there is no such thing as a negative right, because no matter what concept we pick, anyone can infringe on it in some way, somehow. The "right to think" can be infringed by someone blasting load noise or being distracting! So your definition of rights means there are actually no rights at all, because we depend on government to protect us from anyone that might do anything against them, like smothering away our right to breathe.

But if we depend on government to provide those rights, then they aren't really rights, are they? Government can decide, at any time, to no longer protect you from this masked murderer. So how do you have the right to life if a) someone can still smother you even though government tells them they can't? And b) government can take that 'right' away any time a sufficient majority decides you no longer have that 'right'?