3 ms·
I half-agree: many who lean libertarian like to contrast "positive rights" with "negative rights"; and while it's an interesting academic distinction, in my vie
by lukifer 5y ago
I half-agree: many who lean libertarian like to contrast "positive rights" with "negative rights"; and while it's an interesting academic distinction, in my view a purely negative right is indistinguishable from not having a right at all. Perhaps the state cannot proactively ensure my survival with 100% certainty, but a "right to life" is meaningless without some kind of proactive deterrent against violence.
Where I disagree is the "legal" qualifier: while legal protections have an important role to play, so do civil institutions and social norms. Many forms of suppressing free expression are entirely compatible with the First Amendment (economic and social sanctions), and instead have to be defended in civil society, and the court of public opinion.
- ss108 5y agoI see where you're coming from. I just think that if we have to resort to civil institutions beyond courts to enforce something, it's not really a "right". It's some other kind of good or value. So maybe my definition of "right" is too narrow or legalistic--but it is ofc widespread.
- lukifer 5y agoI don't disagree, my position here is "yes, and". However one construes "rights" (it's a thorny topic both morally and empirically!), in my view, legal defenses and civil defenses are each necessary, but not sufficient.