4 ms·
I agree. My personal perspective is that I fundamentally don't agree that negative rights don't conflict with each other, or that there is a meaningful differen
by nicoburns 3y ago
I agree. My personal perspective is that I fundamentally don't agree that negative rights don't conflict with each other, or that there is a meaningful difference between positive and negative rights (which is of course a philosophical position that not everybody will agree with).
- s1artibartfast 3y agoNegative rights not conflicting with each other is the main and perhaps only factor that distinguishes them from positive rights, so if you don't think that is true, of course you won't find a difference. When it comes to practical implementation, the tools used to maintain negative rights are the same as the tools used to maintain positive rights, so they appear very similar. If you're familiar with the concept, you probably already know that negative rights prohibit other people from actions, while positive rights require other people to take actions. I'm curious why you think this distinction is not valid.
- nicoburns 3y agoConsider two possible rights: (1) The right to complete freedom of movement. (2) The right to private personal space free of other people On the face of things, neither of these require anybody to take actions. Nevertheless, one cannot fully exercise (1) without violating (2) and vice versa.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoInteresting I think that is a great example of why and how the concept of personal property (bodily or material) is necessary to make negative rights consistent. Also, the first right seems more like a positive right guaranteeing an entitlement to do or have access to something.