Posted on 05/04/2022 11:35:33 AM PDT by libertasbella
What are “Negative Rights”?
We all have rights as human beings in the United States. We have the right to attend school, go to college, work to obtain money, own property, and defend ourselves, but where do these rights start to infringe on others’ freedom?
Negative rights define our freedoms and our right to have something without interference from outside forces.
To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.libertasbella.com ...
To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties. These rights entitle a person to certain things in life and merely ask that no one interferes with their right to have and enjoy those things.
If someone has a negative right, it means they have the right to freely do something or obtain something how they choose without any interference from outside forces. They are free from the interference of another person or a group of people.
Generally, in Libertarian values, this involves a person’s individual right to something without interference from the government.
Another way to look at negative human rights is that it’s a person’s right not to be subjected to another action. Negative rights don’t only have to focus on obtaining goods and services, but it also applies to the fact that one person cannot force another person to do something because that would infringe on their liberties.
If we compare positive and negative rights, there becomes a foggy distinction, but one thing that’s clear is that the two often contradict themselves. Many people view positive rights as a violation of negative rights.
For example, everyone has the right to a public defender if they get arrested. It’s a positive right for the person being arrested, but the problem is that infringes on someone else’s negative right to choose who they defend, and it also creates issues when scarcity is involved.
Suppose there are 50 people who need public defenders and only five lawyers. In that case, chances are not everyone will receive the same treatment, which will infringe upon the individuals positive rights to an attorney if they cannot afford one themselves.
Most basic rights that we take for granted each day fall into one of these categories, and the American Bill of Rights classifies what an entitlement is, what’s a civil right, and what’s liberty?
When we define negative rights, we start to see more of these come into play in our daily lives. There is often confusion over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have healthcare, property rights, and other inalienable freedoms.
It’s important to understand that most of these are not negative rights; they’re positive rights but with those come the negative right to ensure that no one interferes with your rights. The non-interference factor creates a negative right, and we’ll break it down into some examples in the following section.
Continue reading Negative Rights: A Definitive Guide on What They Are on Libertas Bella
According to the left, there are no individual rights.
All rights belong to the collective/government.
Ping
anything that imposes an obligation - of any kind - on a third party is not a right.
Gobbledy gook and balderdash
Answer me this Libertasbella: What’s the point of classifying rights as negative or positive?
I’ve read your pieces on positive and negative rights from the other thread you posted and find little clarity or justification for such classification.
“According to the left, there are no individual rights.”
And unfortunately, they are, almost correct. The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right can not be taken away. There is nothing in the US that can’t be taken away except the right to be conceived. And that is provided by God and not the USA. They can provide the privilege of abortion to remove the right, but it has to happen after right was accomplished. You don’t abort unconceived human eggs, they just die on their own. Or they can remove the right to conceive by removing the life of the women. But if they are doing it for that purpose, it’s considered murder and is against the law even by the government.
I’ve made this statement a few times and been challenged so I guess I need some assistance: can anyone please show me a right that cannot be removed or suspended making it a real right?
wy69
I may have just gotten a little dumber for reading that. Is it a “problem” with “negative” rights? Are you trying to define negative rights to debate the merits? I think you are going a long way to say their are inalienable rights and civil rights. Any right that infringes on other’s rights or compels behavior or action on another is “negative”? I’d say it should not be considered a right at all.
“I’ve made this statement a few times and been challenged so I guess I need some assistance: can anyone please show me a right that cannot be removed or suspended making it a real right?”
How do you define a “right” and therefore a “real right”?
Many if not all rights can be removed or suspended, often at the initiative of the person holding the right.
If you attempt to murder someone, by your own action your right to life is forfeit to the action of someone protecting the right to life of the target of your attempt.
Your right to make something your property is removed or suspended if someone else has already made that something their property, unless you have that someone’s permission.
How else could it be?
“...the right to be conceived...”
That’s interesting. It implies existence before conception; the existence of someone who can have the right to be conceived before they are conceived.
Is that what you believe? That there is existence before conception?
Isn’t it just basically, positive is you have a right to have a gun, and negative is you have a right NOT to have a gun?
Governments have NO rights, only powers.
Read the article...interesting but awarded with the opportunity to withdraw them. If you can’t withdraw a right, but can withdraw a privilege, and all privileges that are awarded by man can be withdrawn, then is it a right or a privilege?
The article talks a lot about the first amendment calling it a right, but that’s the core of my misunderstanding. According to a paper from the documentary by Peter Sagal from PBS, “...Natural or human rights are inherent to human nature; they are not given by government, but neither does government always protect them. Can freedom of speech or even breathing be protected by law? Only until man removes the protection. And there is only one thing, so far, that man can’t stop without laws and that’s conception in this country even though at this point, like China using criminal actions, their only plan of action is post conception abortion.
So they are even challenging the right to life with laws made by man. And their biggest failure is failed laws, not natural ones. And they can stop you or punish you for failing their laws and God’s laws even though we aren’t smart enough to determine God’s actions. All of them. So is it a right or a privilege awarded by man and given an incorrect name to fool the people? And man controls the outcome of everything after conception, and sometimes before. I believe God calls it free will.
wy69
It’s fun.
Perhaps oddly enough, I can accept that.
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.