4 ms·

Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right, so you seem to be defining the concept in a non-standard way. I think the names are poorly ch

by evanpw 11y ago

Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right, so you seem to be defining the concept in a non-standard way. I think the names are poorly chosen, though. A "negative" right is one for which a specific "violater" can always be identified. If you are stolen from, then someone stole from you. A "positive" right is one in which the only identifiable culprit is "everyone" or "society". If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Maybe you're morally obligated to try to improve the system, but you're not morally obligated to give away everything you have to anyone who asks.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right That property rights -- which are the state-protected privilege to exercise exclusive control of some abstract or concrete thing and restrict others freedom of action with regard to that abstract or concrete thing -- are often cast as a negative right is a perfect illustration of the fact that the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights is far less fundamental than many people try to portray it, and is in many cases purely an artifact of the language chosen in a particular description of the right. > If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. Conversely, if I have a right to acquire the necessities of survival, I can identify a specific violator: whoever it is that actively prevented me from acquiring the existing thing that was necessary. The positive/negative right distinction, even recast as a "specific identifiable violator" distinction, isn't really all that useful: you still have to define which rights exist (even if you've decided which classes of descriptions of rights are acceptable, whether its "only negative" or "only those with specific identifiable violators"), and you still have to deal with the fact whichever rights you decide should exist are likely going to conflict. > This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Unless there doesn't exist enough food to eat, the only reason somebody doesn't have enough to eat is because someone else -- either individually or collectively -- has actively taken steps that deny that person access to the food that exists.
- evanpw 11y ago
  Okay, you've convinced me that the distinction between positive and negative rights is not airtight. I still think it's a useful categorization, though, even if the boundaries are little fuzzy.
chongli 11y ago
Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right In what way? Suppose a piece of land is unowned. How am I to obtain this land without the positive right to do so? If I decide to obtain this land and the local population ignores my decision (and attempts at enforcement) and continues making use of the land (for hunting, fishing, exploration), who is the "violator": Me or society?

by evanpw 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right That property rights -- which are the state-protected privilege to exercise exclusive control of some abstract or concrete thing and restrict others freedom of action with regard to that abstract or concrete thing -- are often cast as a negative right is a perfect illustration of the fact that the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights is far less fundamental than many people try to portray it, and is in many cases purely an artifact of the language chosen in a particular description of the right. > If you don't have enough to eat, it's because society didn't provide a way for you to feed yourself; it's not that specific person's fault because they didn't hand over their sandwich. Conversely, if I have a right to acquire the necessities of survival, I can identify a specific violator: whoever it is that actively prevented me from acquiring the existing thing that was necessary. The positive/negative right distinction, even recast as a "specific identifiable violator" distinction, isn't really all that useful: you still have to define which rights exist (even if you've decided which classes of descriptions of rights are acceptable, whether its "only negative" or "only those with specific identifiable violators"), and you still have to deal with the fact whichever rights you decide should exist are likely going to conflict. > This seems to be the main point of disagreement between us. You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't have enough to eat, then it is everyone else's fault individually. My point of view is that it's possible for someone to go hungry without it being anyone's fault in particular; it's just the result of a bad system. Unless there doesn't exist enough food to eat, the only reason somebody doesn't have enough to eat is because someone else -- either individually or collectively -- has actively taken steps that deny that person access to the food that exists.

evanpw 11y ago
Okay, you've convinced me that the distinction between positive and negative rights is not airtight. I still think it's a useful categorization, though, even if the boundaries are little fuzzy.

chongli 11y ago

Property rights are the prototypical example of a negative right In what way? Suppose a piece of land is unowned. How am I to obtain this land without the positive right to do so? If I decide to obtain this land and the local population ignores my decision (and attempts at enforcement) and continues making use of the land (for hunting, fishing, exploration), who is the "violator": Me or society?