4 ms·

So called "positive rights" like that are bad. If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying that your neighbors should work as

by laut 17y ago

So called "positive rights" like that are bad. If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying that your neighbors should work as slaves to provide it. In that if they don't, they are violating your right. Rights should only be negative, i.e. things you have the right for other people not to do to you. Basically protection of your property rights including your own body. No theft, murder, stealing, rape, fraud etc. Not only do I personally believe positive rights are wrong, they cannot logically be upheld without breaking the negative rights.

wmeredith 17y ago
I came here to say this, but you stated it much more eloquently than I could have; thanks.
nobody_nowhere 17y ago
Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?
- pelle 17y ago
  The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
  - nobody_nowhere 17y ago
    Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
    - steamer25 17y ago
      I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
    - maw 17y ago
      I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
      - gort 17y ago
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)
- laut 17y ago
  Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it. And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
- bitwize 17y ago
  Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff. Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something. Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others). Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
  - joubert 17y ago
    Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status? Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences. More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
      - joubert 17y ago
        My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt. and I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
        anamax 17y ago
        > My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt, Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.) > I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me. They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you? Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches. I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem. Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)
ct4ul4u 17y ago
While I agree that "positive rights" frequently amount to legally mandated wealth transfer, saying your neighbors must "work as slaves" is a bit extreme. A slave has no choice as to whether they work, what they work on, and how they work. Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.
- steamer25 17y ago
  What if nobody opts to work in broadband? How will the "right" be satisfied? You may say that someone would choose to do so but what if they couldn't charge for their services because to do so was denying somebody who couldn't pay their "right". And then you'd probably mention that the government would pay for it. And I'd ask where the government would get the money. The answer, of course, being the tax powers you've already mentioned. If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.
amalcon 17y ago
The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars. The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts? Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.
- mseebach 17y ago
  > The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights. Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right. Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right. > Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions. Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
  - amalcon 17y ago
frig 17y ago
Pop quiz: what % of the first 10 amendments guarantee positive rights?
sounddust 17y ago
Coming from an extremely poor family, I feel fortunate to have been raised in a society that provided the "positive right" to a public education; otherwise I would probably be unemployed or making minimum wage in a gas station right now.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  I also came from a poor family. I wish public education hadn't existed, because I believe there would have been private teachers to pay by the lesson. I think I'd have learned more and gone further if I'd spent a mix of time helping work for my uncle and paying teachers by the lesson for the classes I thought were really worthwhile.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  I don't begrudge you your education, but it's worth noting that most private schools (ie: schools that aren't a "positive right") offer need based financial aid. That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.
- natrius 17y ago
  There's a difference between rights and things that any sufficiently advanced society should ensure are available for all of its citizens.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    If it's government mandated/enforced/funded, it's probably safe to refer to it as a "positive right". Otherwise, I agree.
parse_tree 17y ago
Very well said.
- parse_tree 17y ago
  jeepers! Complimenting they guy and I get killed on the down votes??
Tichy 17y ago
In France and the rest of Europe they are discussing laws to shut people off the internet for pirating stuff on the internet. In that light I am not sure if the law in question here is really an obligation - it could just prevent somebodies internet connection being taken, rather than forcing "somebody" to provide. It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.
req2 17y ago
Where do you place rights like access to clean water?
- natrius 17y ago
  How can you have a right to clean water if there is no clean water near you? Do other people have to come give it to you?
  - joubert 17y ago
    Do you have the right to air unpolluted "unnaturally" (i.e. excl. passing gas) by your neighbors?
    - natrius 17y ago
      Not in my opinion. You do have the right to not be harmed by others, but when it comes to shared resources like that, you're going to have to agree as a society on what is acceptable and what isn't.
      - joubert 17y ago
        What about smoking in close proximity to others?
        natrius 17y ago
        Still not infringing on a right, but it's something I think should be against the rules of any society. Rights are fairly black and white. "Close proximity" is gray.
      - joubert 17y ago
        Do you think naturally occurring fresh water should not be considered a shared resource, "owned" by the citizens of the country in which the water is found?
        17y ago

by laut 17y ago

wmeredith 17y ago

I came here to say this, but you stated it much more eloquently than I could have; thanks.

nobody_nowhere 17y ago

Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?

pelle 17y ago
The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
- nobody_nowhere 17y ago
  Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
  - steamer25 17y ago
    I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
  - maw 17y ago
    I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
    - gort 17y ago
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)
laut 17y ago
Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it. And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
bitwize 17y ago
Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff. Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something. Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others). Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
- joubert 17y ago
  Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status? Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences. More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
    - joubert 17y ago
      My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt. and I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt, Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.) > I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me. They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you? Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches. I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem. Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)

ct4ul4u 17y ago

While I agree that "positive rights" frequently amount to legally mandated wealth transfer, saying your neighbors must "work as slaves" is a bit extreme. A slave has no choice as to whether they work, what they work on, and how they work. Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.

steamer25 17y ago
What if nobody opts to work in broadband? How will the "right" be satisfied? You may say that someone would choose to do so but what if they couldn't charge for their services because to do so was denying somebody who couldn't pay their "right". And then you'd probably mention that the government would pay for it. And I'd ask where the government would get the money. The answer, of course, being the tax powers you've already mentioned. If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.

amalcon 17y ago

The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars. The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts? Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.

mseebach 17y ago
> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights. Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right. Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right. > Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions. Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
- amalcon 17y ago

frig 17y ago

Pop quiz: what % of the first 10 amendments guarantee positive rights?

sounddust 17y ago

Coming from an extremely poor family, I feel fortunate to have been raised in a society that provided the "positive right" to a public education; otherwise I would probably be unemployed or making minimum wage in a gas station right now.

lionhearted 17y ago
I also came from a poor family. I wish public education hadn't existed, because I believe there would have been private teachers to pay by the lesson. I think I'd have learned more and gone further if I'd spent a mix of time helping work for my uncle and paying teachers by the lesson for the classes I thought were really worthwhile.
mrkurt 17y ago
I don't begrudge you your education, but it's worth noting that most private schools (ie: schools that aren't a "positive right") offer need based financial aid. That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.
natrius 17y ago
There's a difference between rights and things that any sufficiently advanced society should ensure are available for all of its citizens.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  If it's government mandated/enforced/funded, it's probably safe to refer to it as a "positive right". Otherwise, I agree.

parse_tree 17y ago

Very well said.

parse_tree 17y ago
jeepers! Complimenting they guy and I get killed on the down votes??

Tichy 17y ago

In France and the rest of Europe they are discussing laws to shut people off the internet for pirating stuff on the internet. In that light I am not sure if the law in question here is really an obligation - it could just prevent somebodies internet connection being taken, rather than forcing "somebody" to provide. It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.

req2 17y ago

Where do you place rights like access to clean water?

natrius 17y ago
How can you have a right to clean water if there is no clean water near you? Do other people have to come give it to you?
- joubert 17y ago
  Do you have the right to air unpolluted "unnaturally" (i.e. excl. passing gas) by your neighbors?
  - natrius 17y ago
    Not in my opinion. You do have the right to not be harmed by others, but when it comes to shared resources like that, you're going to have to agree as a society on what is acceptable and what isn't.
    - joubert 17y ago
      What about smoking in close proximity to others?
      - natrius 17y ago
        Still not infringing on a right, but it's something I think should be against the rules of any society. Rights are fairly black and white. "Close proximity" is gray.
    - joubert 17y ago
      Do you think naturally occurring fresh water should not be considered a shared resource, "owned" by the citizens of the country in which the water is found?
      - 17y ago