[alexander_busek]

You talk a lot about "positive" rights.

For the sake of clarity: Please provide examples of negative rights.

Since ALL rights have to be enforced / protected - and enforcement / protection must come from some higher authority or power (otherwise, in the case of self-enforcement, it's just "might makes right") - I would say that all rights are "positive" rights, and that there are no such things as "negative" rights.

Consequently, the expression "positive rights" is meaningless, and should be replaced with "rights."

Regards,

[Diapason]

Negative rights are those you have purely by virtue of being alive, eg right to life, freedom of association, etc. It also includes things like the right to work, food, etc however it doesn’t require that someone else gives you a job or food. You may have to provide those for yourself.

[Svartalfiar]

For the sake of clarity: Please provide examples of negative rights.

Since ALL rights have to be enforced / protected - and enforcement / protection must come from some higher authority or power (otherwise, in the case of self-enforcement, it's just "might makes right") - I would say that all rights are "positive" rights, and that there are no such things as "negative" rights.

Enforcement and protection have nothing to do with whether a right is positive or negative. 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.
A positive right is one that must be provided to you, such as an attorney if you can't afford one. They're constructed rights, not natural ones. Someone(s) MUST do something in order for you to have that attorney. The infringement is taken away, not provided.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

You make a good point that any service provided by government has to be paid for. If Libertarians truly believe that all taxation is theft then they would either have to become anarchists or perform some semantic mumbo jumbo and claim that fees or tariffs or tolls aren't like taxes and aren't theft.

The argument that citizens can't possibly have a right to food, shelter, clothing or health care because it would require some people to be farmers, builders, clothiers, and doctors only makes sense for anarchists. As you pointed out even a minimal government that sets, enforces, and judges the law would require some people to perform the necessary jobs.

It's not really about negative or positive rights but about what products and services are best provided by government and which by the private sector.

In most cases the services and products are provided by the private sector with varying degrees of government oversight, e.g. dams requiring much more than soft drinks.

[libertasbella]

Sure thing, those articles are on other parts of my site:
https://blog.libertasbella.com/glossary/negative-rights/
https://blog.libertasbella.com/negative-vs-positive-rights/