positive rights and negative rights

[RespectTradition]

I think everyone here knows the difference between positive rights and negative rights, but here is a brief synopsis in case you dont:

negative rights: these are the rights you have that other people cannot justly take from you. These include, but are not limited to: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property ownership, right to privacy, etc.

positive rights: these are rights to things that must be supplied to you. these include, but are not limited to: the right to food, right to medical care, right to a public supplied education.

I know what my views are on the two types of rights, but I was wondering what other people's thoughts are.

 

[MystifyingVol]

Please clarify on the positive "right to food". You mean the right to have food given for free, correct?

 

[RespectTradition]

yes.

 

[YorkVol]

I think any society performs at its highest when it can maintain the unalienable rights (negatives) but at the same time have the compassion to take care of the weakest members. Does a somewhat healthy adult have the right to food? No, but an orphaned baby does.

 

[RespectTradition]

I believe in compassion and helping others. I just don't think it is possible to have both negative and positive rights.

For example:

You have a right to your property. A baby needs food. To feed the baby, your property is taken from you and given to the baby.

A better world is one where people choose to give their property to help the baby. And yes, I do believe in that world.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I believe in compassion and helping others. I just don't think it is possible to have both negative and positive rights.

For example:

You have a right to your property. A baby needs food. To feed the baby, your property is taken from you and given to the baby.

A better world is one where people choose to give their property to help the baby. And yes, I do believe in that

Me too, but unfortunately that doesn't happen. I believe it is our duty as a country to take care of its people. If they are hungry, feed them. Otherwise we are no different than a third world country.

 

[Georgia Peach]

I believe in negative rights. I believe that positive rights are things that are earned and not given unless someone has agreed to supply them through their own choice, i.e. private organizations and charities.

 

[RespectTradition]

Me too, but unfortunately that doesn't happen. I believe it is our duty as a country to take care of its people. If they are hungry, feed them. Otherwise we are no different than a third world country.

I disagree. I think if there were no govt social programs then there would be much more charity. And there is already a lot of charity. I don't have statistics at hand, but I have read in many places that pre-govt-handouts there were very few people who starved to death in this country.

 

[Danl]

I disagree. I think if there were no govt social programs then there would be much more charity.

Why? Is there an historical precedent for this?

And there is already a lot of charity. I don't have statistics at hand, but I have read in many places that pre-govt-handouts there were very few people who starved to death in this country.

How many starve to death now?

 

[RespectTradition]

Why? Is there an historical precedent for this?




How many starve to death now?

Based on what I have read, most people who give to charity give based on their take home pay. They tend not to give fixed amounts, but rather they tend to give based on how much they have after their needs are taken care of. For example, most people give more to charity after a raise than they did before. Bearing that in mind, a lower tax is a de facto pay raise. Assuming all of this is true, then lowering taxes would increase charity.

I only spent about 10 minutes, but I couldn't find any statistics about how many starve to death in america each year. I kept finding things about it not being enough to be statistically valid. I don't have the energy to dig into it any deeper.

 

[Danl]

Based on what I have read, most people who give to charity give based on their take home pay. They tend not to give fixed amounts, but rather they tend to give based on how much they have after their needs are taken care of. For example, most people give more to charity after a raise than they did before. Bearing that in mind, a lower tax is a de facto pay raise. Assuming all of this is true, then lowering taxes would increase charity.

I only spent about 10 minutes, but I couldn't find any statistics about how many starve to death in america each year. I kept finding things about it not being enough to be statistically valid. I don't have the energy to dig into it any deeper.

OK.

 

[txbo]

I believe in compassion and helping others. I just don't think it is possible to have both negative and positive rights.

....

If my negative rights infringe on your negative rights, don't there have to be positive rights to apply justice?

You've pretty narrowly defined negative and positive rights. Negative rights refer to those those rights that need no action other than to be left alone. Positive rights require action.

Example:
If you and I live along the same creek, my positive rights suggest that I should be left alone if I want to dam the creek. Should you not have positive rights to stop me from doing this?

 

[RespectTradition]

That does not fit any definition of positive rights that I have ever read.

However, as a rule of thumb, if a choice is given between action infringing on rights and inaction infringing on rights, then inaction wins. In other words, I can do anything I want as long as I do not infringe on your rights. As the old libertarian saying goes: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

 

[txbo]

That does not fit any definition of positive rights that I have ever read.

However, as a rule of thumb, if a choice is given between action infringing on rights and inaction infringing on rights, then inaction wins. In other words, I can do anything I want as long as I do not infringe on your rights. As the old libertarian saying goes: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

HAHA! I like that. However, that is the fundamental need for positive rights. At some point one man's negative rights can infringe on another's.

There are also basic needs for positive rights in a capitalist society. That is where I believe Libertarians get it wrong.

 

[volinbham]

If I steal from someone (violate a negative right) the government gets to imprison me (violate a negative right).

Where does this fit?

 

[Headed For Home]

I am going with certain limited positive rights simply because some things, publicly subsidized education and national defense, for example are simply not realistic otherwise.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I get your distinction between positive and negative rights. However, I would be interested in your definition of "right". Depending on your retort, I think we might end up bumping heads of social contracts again.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am going with certain limited positive rights simply because some things, publicly subsidized education and national defense, for example are simply not realistic otherwise.

Not realistic otherwise? You mean education wouldn't happen if it weren't guaranteed by our overlords? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Headed For Home]

Not realistic otherwise? You mean education wouldn't happen if it weren't guaranteed by our overlords? Is that what you are saying?

Things like education and a national army would not be feasible without govt. involved. Some people in some areas would pull it off extremely well while the masses would fail.

 

[n_huffhines]

Things like education and a national army would not be feasible without govt. involved. Some people in some areas would pull it off extremely well while the masses would fail.

I don't know why you make this assumption. I admit national defense doesn't seem feasible, but I have no idea what your basis is for education. It's like saying without the post office the masses wouldn't get mail.

Without government you don't have a nation, so there's no such thing as national defense. Communities would seek their own defense systems, likely purchased from entrepreneurs. Just food for thought.

 

[Headed For Home]

I don't know why you make this assumption. I admit national defense doesn't seem feasible, but I have no idea what your basis is for education. It's like saying without the post office the masses wouldn't get mail.

Without government you don't have a nation, so there's no such thing as national defense. Communities would seek their own defense systems, likely purchased from entrepreneurs. Just food for thought.

so it looks like we agree that a national defense is impossible without govt involvement.

The education system is much the same in that many families cannot or would not effective educate their children effectively without govt involvement.

 

[Weezy]

I believe in rights and positive rights are not rights but services that should or shouldn't be provided by gov't depending on cost/efficiency.

 

[n_huffhines]

so it looks like we agree that a national defense is impossible without govt involvement.

The education system is much the same in that many families cannot or would not effective educate their children effectively without govt involvement.

No, I said without government there is no nation.

You have no idea on the latter. It's just an assumption. You are also assuming everyone gets effective education now.

 

[GAVol]

so it looks like we agree that a national defense is impossible without govt involvement.

The education system is much the same in that many families cannot or would not effective educate their children effectively without govt involvement.

One look at the trainwreck school system where I live and you'd rethink that position immediately. 30% of the kids in my county are in private schools.

 

[Headed For Home]

No, I said without government there is no nation.

You have no idea on the latter. It's just an assumption. You are also assuming everyone gets effective education now.

We can look back at our own history and see that without govt involvement, many children were never educated to the point of literacy much less to the level of college ready.

For the record, I think most of our public systems are a joke. However, having moved a few times while my children have been in school, I can tell you that some local school districts are doing a relatively good job while others are ineffective and live in day to day chaos.

If you are going to propose the idea that all our kids should be educated, there is no way to accomplished without some sort of govt involvement.