Free Republic

What are “Positive Rights”? There is much talk regarding “rights” and how they relate to freedom and liberty. If you’re wondering, “what are positive rights,” and why should I care? We’ll explain what they are and some of the fundamental issues that many people have with this ideology. Positive Rights Definition A positive right is one that requires others (namely the government) to provide you with either a good or service. They do so by taking away another individuals’ rights. Positive right issues start to arise when these infringe on the fundamental human rights of others by requiring them to...

The difference between negative vs positive rights is that one requires action while the other requires inaction. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something. You may hear negative rights referred to as “liberties,” and that’s because they are basic human and civil rights stating that no one can interfere with our right to obtain something through trade or bartering. Positive rights are often called “entitlements” because they are things that someone must provide to us, whether we’ve...

Here's a completely constitutional gun-control measure Congress should consider: Establish a robust national militia, mandating that every gun owner become a member. Failure to register with the militia should result in serious jail time. In the obvious interest of knowing the quantity and quality of arms available to the militia's purposes, all members should be required to inventory all of their personal arms. Failure to do so should also warrant significant jail time.

One of the problems with positive rights though, which conservatives and libertarians tend to point out, is that in order for them to mean anything in practice, someone else will inherently have to provide the means by which they are given. For example, if you have the right to health-care, then a doctor or nurse will have to at some point, render that care. Either the medical practitioner will have to be paid for his or her rendering of care, or he or she will have to be compelled to render it. This is manifestly different from a negative right...

Is there a "right" to health care? The UN, the EU, and now the US Congress are on record as taking the affirmative on this question. The basic rationale is that the fact of everyone's needing health care (true) translates directly into everyone's having a right to it (false). Such thinking is emblematic of the perpetually puerile, primary-process predisposition of the modern liberal mind: "I need, therefore you give." Or, as another famous "progressive" once put it: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." What this admittedly abbreviated version of the "health-care-is-a-right" position misses is...