4 ms·

Habeus corpus. The right to bear arms. The right to confront witnesses against you. Equal protection. All those seem like "positive rights" to me. I'm not sure

Habeus corpus. The right to bear arms. The right to confront witnesses against you. Equal protection. All those seem like "positive rights" to me. I'm not sure you understand the concept. It's never been seriously suggested that the right to keep and bear arms implies that the government must supply a gun for me. The right to habeas corpus doesn't say that the government has to do anything to make me comfortable, just that I retain ownership of my person. Equal protection doesn't say anything about equal outcomes, just that the law must not view any of us differently. There really is a fundamental difference in saying that the government must not do something (the negative rights angle), versus that the government provide us something (the positive rights angle).

linkregister 10y ago
The term "rights" means different things in different places. In the realm of the Constitution, it almost exclusively refers to limits of the (Federal!) Government. In terms of a contract or in modern welfare state entitlements (such as Social Security), "rights" indeed refer to benefits owed. Kimmel wasn't referring to the Federalist Papers when he made his speech; it was an informal humanitarian modern-welfare-state understanding of "rights". I agree that there should probably be some limit to the amount an insurance company needs to fulfill claims, otherwise our premiums are likewise unbounded. The NHS and Canadian health systems appear to have rate limiting aspects (perhaps unintended) that have the outcome of bounding costs.
lisper 10y ago
OK, trial by Jury, as provided in both the 6th and 7th amendments, is definitely a positive right even on that definition.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  Almost, but really it's specifying conditions by which the government can revoke negative rights to life, liberty, property, etc.
  - lisper 10y ago
    Let's not get lost in the weeds here. The question at hand is: The government takes my money because they think I committed a crime. The government is later proven to be wrong. Do I have a right to get the money they took back? To me this is a total no-brainer: the answer is obviously yes, notwithstanding that the Constitution does not explicitly say so. I don't see any point in quibbling over what flavor of right this is.

linkregister 10y ago

The term "rights" means different things in different places. In the realm of the Constitution, it almost exclusively refers to limits of the (Federal!) Government. In terms of a contract or in modern welfare state entitlements (such as Social Security), "rights" indeed refer to benefits owed. Kimmel wasn't referring to the Federalist Papers when he made his speech; it was an informal humanitarian modern-welfare-state understanding of "rights". I agree that there should probably be some limit to the amount an insurance company needs to fulfill claims, otherwise our premiums are likewise unbounded. The NHS and Canadian health systems appear to have rate limiting aspects (perhaps unintended) that have the outcome of bounding costs.

lisper 10y ago

OK, trial by Jury, as provided in both the 6th and 7th amendments, is definitely a positive right even on that definition.

humanrebar 10y ago
Almost, but really it's specifying conditions by which the government can revoke negative rights to life, liberty, property, etc.
- lisper 10y ago
  Let's not get lost in the weeds here. The question at hand is: The government takes my money because they think I committed a crime. The government is later proven to be wrong. Do I have a right to get the money they took back? To me this is a total no-brainer: the answer is obviously yes, notwithstanding that the Constitution does not explicitly say so. I don't see any point in quibbling over what flavor of right this is.