6 ms·

Now here would be good forum post. But is pretty philosophical. What is the source of rights. If we agree that rights come from the state then we can't reall

Now here would be good forum post. But is pretty philosophical. What is the source of rights. If we agree that rights come from the state then we can't really complain when other countries do horrific things to their citizens. We also can't complain if our elected leaders decide that free speech, privacy, or any other pet social issue is removed. I think that we had it mostly right at the founding of this country. Too much could be written about this argument but to me a right can't be provided by someone else's labor. Now that I think about it, a right is also something that can't be taken away. No one should be able to prevent your free speech (1st Amendment), defend yourself (2nd Amendment), or violate your privacy (4th Amendment) without due process. In this case no one is preventing someone from being able to care for themselves. We are just arguing over who pays for it. It is probably a bad example but everyone has the right to use the roads for transportation. We just don't have the right to the car, insurance, and gas. Edit: Added more comments

AlexB138 8y ago
What you're getting at is the difference between Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative Rights guarantee inaction, e.g. the government can't suppress your speech or take away your ability to defend yourself. Positive Rights guarantee action, e.g. the government will force someone to provide you healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights You're also touching on the difference between Natural and Legal Rights.
- rad88 8y ago
  Rights are expectations that you have from a just society. There's no real division into positive and negative rights. Due process, for instance, could be phrased either way but it is the same right nonetheless. One phrasing would emphasize freedom from extralegal persecution, the other would emphasize that all sorts of people (e.g. lawyers, juries, judges) are compelled to provide you certain services. You can't have rights without guaranteeing action. My right not to be tortured requires all sorts of individual and societal interventions in order to fulfill. There's no classification of rights into positive/negative and certainly no difference in validity between the two.
- eaandkw 8y ago
  I could not have said it better myself. I actually thought of that a little while after I wrote that.

AlexB138 8y ago

What you're getting at is the difference between Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative Rights guarantee inaction, e.g. the government can't suppress your speech or take away your ability to defend yourself. Positive Rights guarantee action, e.g. the government will force someone to provide you healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights You're also touching on the difference between Natural and Legal Rights.

rad88 8y ago
Rights are expectations that you have from a just society. There's no real division into positive and negative rights. Due process, for instance, could be phrased either way but it is the same right nonetheless. One phrasing would emphasize freedom from extralegal persecution, the other would emphasize that all sorts of people (e.g. lawyers, juries, judges) are compelled to provide you certain services. You can't have rights without guaranteeing action. My right not to be tortured requires all sorts of individual and societal interventions in order to fulfill. There's no classification of rights into positive/negative and certainly no difference in validity between the two.
eaandkw 8y ago
I could not have said it better myself. I actually thought of that a little while after I wrote that.