[JackFromTexas]

I don’t like this idea of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ rights.
It is not natural, but is a construct of the Leftist.
A right is a characteristic of my Humanity, and is endowed by the Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence, or Evolution, for which I have NO Proof or Evidence.) There is no way to have something that is innate to my existence to be described as this is.

‘Positive Rights’ may be better described here are just items our society has adopted to tend to people who may need help of some sort. Such things May and CAN be with held by society/government at the whim of the provider. Can the desire of the society two generations ago to help certain members through a depression be considered obsolete, and thus ended? Certainly. Rights, they are not.
My right to Healthcare starts with me. If I have a fever, I can choose to rest, drink water, and eat soup. I can rest on my own, and get water from a public tap, but soup I may need to get from somewhere else. Do I buy it, or do I proclaim a ‘Right’ to soup and make someone else provide it? Who am I taking from, who’s labor am I taking? My SLAVES?
You should see where I am going. Our Rights are innate to us, at birth, and are not to be messed with lightly. The so called Positive rights are the tool of Socialists, and are to BIND us eternally to the Government.

[KrisKrinkle]

“I don’t like this idea of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ rights.”

Nor do I. I find it obfuscating.

When discussing “rights”, people too often leave out the definition of a right, seeming to assume that everyone means the same thing.

Samuel Johnson in his dictionaries of the late 1700’s defined a right as a “just claim”.

Noah Webster in his dictionary of 1828 also defines a right as a “just claim” and goes on to say “Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”

They both say more, but the above seems to me most applicable here as a basic definition of a right.

The Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The use of the adjective “unalienable” implies other kinds of rights. An unalienable right may be described as” a characteristic of my Humanity, and is endowed by the Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence, or Evolution…)” and would be a natural right as defined by Webster in 1828, but there may be other rights or just claims based on “civil, political, religious, personal, and public” grounds which rights are other than unalienable.

[Svartalfiar]

Positive rights would (mostly, if not all) be those that only come about due to the existence of society and government. The right to a fair trial, the right to an attorney, the rights to have the State enforce a contract, all of these are Constitutionally recognized rights that require someone to do something for you (even if it's gov-provided or gov-funded), and can only exist if there's a society/government to make contracts or conduct judicial proceedings.

These aren't some ambiguous "rights" like healthcare, or a job, or housing, all of which aren't clearly defined, and are debatable as to how much of a right they actually are (welfare/entitlement would be a better term here, especially since an 'entitlement' is government-defined and government-granted). Whereas my above examples are something everyone MUST be provided in order for society/government to function in its basic role as society/government. If you don't have the right to a fair trial, how do you have any of your other rights? They can simply be taken away by the strongest guy/guys, who also happen to run government. These aren't just a matter of gimme-stuff, they ensure a certain process to you/everyone equally.