So if you and I are on a desert island, and you have some money, and I have a right to a job, then you are required to offer me a job. I have a right to it, cor

So if you and I are on a desert island, and you have some money, and I have a right to a job, then you are required to offer me a job. I have a right to it, correct? But in so doing, I make you my slave, since you are obligated to employ me. So my "right" to a job violates your right to liberty. Thus the distinction between negative and positive rights. The fundamental (natural) rights of life, liberty, and property are negative rights in that others may not violate those rights with impunity. (I have a right to defend my life with violence) Jobs, healthcare, education, income, etc are all positive rights, in that they require someone else to act in order to fulfill my right to those things. Thus all positive rights eventually violate the natural rights of another, since when reduced to the desert island example, the other becomes my slave. We're on a desert island and: I have a right to education, and you're a teacher I have a right to a kidney transplant, and you have two kidneys I have a right to healthcare, and you're a doctor I have a right to eat, and you have lots of food I have a right to shelter, and you have the only hut on the island In all of these cases, you become my slave, since you are forced to fulfill my "right" to something. Of course, we're talking about a legal ethic here, not a moral one. If I need shelter, and you have the only hut on the island, then it would be properly moral for you to share with me, but I cannot legally compel you to do so, from a natural rights perspective.