3 ms·

This lays bare a fundamental issue with positive rights in general: having the right _to_ something boils down to having the right to force someone else to prov

This lays bare a fundamental issue with positive rights in general: having the right _to_ something boils down to having the right to force someone else to provide it for you. Compared to, for instance, the right to be safe from harm. Negative rights are easy to pin down, whereas positive rights, regardless of whether or not we should provide healthcare for everyone etc., are not a very solid concept and mean different things to everyone.

lostcolony 5y ago
Doesn't the Declaration of Independence call out that governments are instituted to -secure- rights; specifically, 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? That sounds like a positive right to me, one very specifically saying governments are charged with upholding. And healthcare certainly seems like it falls under 'life', if not all three. I find this attempt to distinguish between positive and negative rights unhelpful semantic rhetoric. Every positive right can be rephrased into a negative right, and vice versa. The first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." equates to "You have the right to (speak, gather, etc) free from governmental censorship". "The right to be safe from harm" itself sounds like a positive right; certainly, without enforcement to ensure it, such a statement is a lie and the right de facto does not exist.
- cylon13 5y ago
  I think the important distinction is that negative rights are defaults. You are already not being harmed unless someone harms you. Whether law enforcement exists or not, you can say someone harming you is violating your rights. With the right to healthcare, were all pre-modern humans constantly walking around having their rights violated? Healthcare requires a whole setup, so additionally it's hard to talk about what you even have the right to, concretely. I agree it's a semantic distinction, but I think it is helpful, because it separates rights in to the kinds that are fundamentally attached to human beings and the kinds that are basically strong preferences for the existence of different institutions.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you. Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. "Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      >>Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Your claims are self-refuting. You don't need to believe in speech or a right to it in order to speak. You have to right to free speech because because you are able to speak without the interference or involvement of others. This is an objective right because it is predicated on objective concretes (i.e. the ability to communicate). If there are no objective rights then there is no such thing as a harm or benefit. Only an empty act devoid of all meaning on it's own. >>Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you.Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. A "social contract" is only as good as the awareness/belief of its existence. In your world of social contracts, rights are determined by mystical belief, mass delusion, or the will of the mob. Not objective circumstances. Social contracts as such are neither provable nor enforceable. They are elements of a civil religion or a civil superstition. >>"Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion. Society can't adopt a negative right because a negative right can't be enforced. It can only be observed, enumerated, and built upon. A right to liberty is a right because (I know I'm repeating myself) the existence of said right is predicated on your concretes of being able to live freely in the first place. And doing so without the interference or intervention of others.

lostcolony 5y ago

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence call out that governments are instituted to -secure- rights; specifically, 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? That sounds like a positive right to me, one very specifically saying governments are charged with upholding. And healthcare certainly seems like it falls under 'life', if not all three. I find this attempt to distinguish between positive and negative rights unhelpful semantic rhetoric. Every positive right can be rephrased into a negative right, and vice versa. The first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." equates to "You have the right to (speak, gather, etc) free from governmental censorship". "The right to be safe from harm" itself sounds like a positive right; certainly, without enforcement to ensure it, such a statement is a lie and the right de facto does not exist.

cylon13 5y ago
I think the important distinction is that negative rights are defaults. You are already not being harmed unless someone harms you. Whether law enforcement exists or not, you can say someone harming you is violating your rights. With the right to healthcare, were all pre-modern humans constantly walking around having their rights violated? Healthcare requires a whole setup, so additionally it's hard to talk about what you even have the right to, concretely. I agree it's a semantic distinction, but I think it is helpful, because it separates rights in to the kinds that are fundamentally attached to human beings and the kinds that are basically strong preferences for the existence of different institutions.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you. Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. "Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    >>Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Your claims are self-refuting. You don't need to believe in speech or a right to it in order to speak. You have to right to free speech because because you are able to speak without the interference or involvement of others. This is an objective right because it is predicated on objective concretes (i.e. the ability to communicate). If there are no objective rights then there is no such thing as a harm or benefit. Only an empty act devoid of all meaning on it's own. >>Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you.Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. A "social contract" is only as good as the awareness/belief of its existence. In your world of social contracts, rights are determined by mystical belief, mass delusion, or the will of the mob. Not objective circumstances. Social contracts as such are neither provable nor enforceable. They are elements of a civil religion or a civil superstition. >>"Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion. Society can't adopt a negative right because a negative right can't be enforced. It can only be observed, enumerated, and built upon. A right to liberty is a right because (I know I'm repeating myself) the existence of said right is predicated on your concretes of being able to live freely in the first place. And doing so without the interference or intervention of others.