Replies

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.

There is nothing in Berlin's definitions about rights. The essayist is confusing rights with liberties. Negative liberties are those that can be constrained external to the person whereas positive liberties are those that are constrained by internal limitations. A negative liberty would be something like the ability to smoke marijuana. A positive liberty would be something like being able to run a marathon. Positive liberties do not necessarily require the forced compliance of other citizens.

I have heard about negative and positive rights but I don't believe they line up as nicely with negative and positive liberties as the essayist suggests.

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,

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.