3 ms·

Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement

by amalcon 17y ago

Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement to express oneself on a global scale. Is a "negative" right (such as free expression) really a "negative" right if it requires something that cannot be guaranteed save by a positive right? The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right? The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps. For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.

mseebach 17y ago
The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that. The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights. I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
mrkurt 17y ago
That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept. A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen. The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right. You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that. Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own. Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.

by amalcon 17y ago

mseebach 17y ago

The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that. The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights. I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.

mrkurt 17y ago

That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept. A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen. The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right. You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that. Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own. Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.