NationStates Jolt Archive

It is a standard tenet of liberals (of the classic bent) and particularly libertarians that they idea of 'positive rights' are incoherent. They are regarded as a fallacy, as they necessarily conflict with negative rights. However, I believe this is not so, and this confusion arises from an error in how we look at freedom.

The traditional liberal definition of freedom is difficult to nail down precisely, but it is something like this: The ability of an individual to be/not be or do/not do a thing without interference by others.

By this definition, postive rights are certainly contradictory, as they necesarily imply the infringement of the rights of others, generally in the sense of property.

However, I feel this is a needlessly narrow definition of freedom. I propose a triadic formula through which to examine it:

Freedom is:
the ability of x to do/not do or be/not be y without obstruction from z

where x is an actor or actors, y is an action or state of being, and z is an obstruction of some kind.
In this formula "positive" and "negative" rights are on equal footing; postitive rights clearly become as coherent as negative rights. Positive rights would look like:

Right to health:
the ability of an individual to be healthy without obstruction from povery

or something similar. Negative rights would look like this:

Right to Property
the ability of an individual/group to create/maintain property without obstruction by a government.

At this point we can see that in essence negative and positive rights are the qualitatively the same: they differ only in the definition of the variable x, y, and z.

This does mean, however, that ALL freedoms can be viewed as contradictory- all freedom/rights could be impacted by other rights and freedoms. This doesn't not imply incoherence though: rather this creates grounds for politics.

Following this model, political struggle determines which variables are accepted as viable rights or freedoms. This means that other concerns than traditional liberties, such as justice, equality, etc can be looked at through the structure of this triadic definition of liberty.

I have briefly studied this topic, though it was negative/positive freedom not rights.

The problem with your reasoning here, as far as I know, is that you really aren't putting positive rights into a new framework. What you are doing is making them negative and calling them positive.

Negative rights/freedoms are about the lack of obstruction. They don't tell you what you can do so much as not stopping you from doing what you will.

Positive rights/freedoms are the prescence of real options. This view is that it isn't enough to be free from direct obstruction, because the combined actions of other actors will limit options to zero and thus, no freedom.

As a Libertarian, I must bring in

the ability for an individual to profit without obstruction from taxes.

I have briefly studied this topic, though it was negative/positive freedom not rights.

The problem with your reasoning here, as far as I know, is that you really aren't putting positive rights into a new framework. What you are doing is making them negative and calling them positive.

How so? using this formula, there is essentially no difference between positive and negative freedoms/rights. The entire language of positive/negative is an obstacle to reasonable discussion of the actual value of a given freedom, which this avoids.

Negative rights/freedoms are about the lack of obstruction. They don't tell you what you can do so much as not stopping you from doing what you will.

As do the positive ones; however, positive rights imply external actors in terms of 'interference', while negative rights usually only include the direct actions of other individuals.

Freedom is:
the ability of x to do/not do or be/not be y without obstruction from z

where x is an actor or actors, y is an action or state of being, and z is an obstruction of some kind.
In this formula "positive" and "negative" rights are on equal footing; postitive rights clearly become as coherent as negative rights. Positive rights would look like:

Right to health:
the ability of an individual to be healthy without obstruction from povery

or something similar. Negative rights would look like this:

Right to Property
the ability of an individual/group to create/maintain property without obstruction by a government.

but but but... only the government could possibly ever have the effect of restricting freedom. other social facts are obviously irrelevant.

It is a standard tenet of liberals (of the classic bent) and particularly libertarians that they idea of 'positive rights' are incoherent. They are regarded as a fallacy, as they necessarily conflict with negative rights. However, I believe this is not so, and this confusion arises from an error in how we look at freedom.

The traditional liberal definition of freedom is difficult to nail down precisely, but it is something like this: The ability of an individual to be/not be or do/not do a thing without interference by others.

By this definition, postive rights are certainly contradictory, as they necesarily imply the infringement of the rights of others, generally in the sense of property.

However, I feel this is a needlessly narrow definition of freedom. I propose a triadic formula through which to examine it:

Freedom is:
the ability of x to do/not do or be/not be y without obstruction from z

where x is an actor or actors, y is an action or state of being, and z is an obstruction of some kind.
In this formula "positive" and "negative" rights are on equal footing; postitive rights clearly become as coherent as negative rights. Positive rights would look like:

Right to health:
the ability of an individual to be healthy without obstruction from povery

or something similar. Negative rights would look like this:

Right to Property
the ability of an individual/group to create/maintain property without obstruction by a government.

At this point we can see that in essence negative and positive rights are the qualitatively the same: they differ only in the definition of the variable x, y, and z.

This does mean, however, that ALL freedoms can be viewed as contradictory- all freedom/rights could be impacted by other rights and freedoms. This doesn't not imply incoherence though: rather this creates grounds for politics.

Following this model, political struggle determines which variables are accepted as viable rights or freedoms. This means that other concerns than traditional liberties, such as justice, equality, etc can be looked at through the structure of this triadic definition of liberty.

You've got the terms wrong.

A "positive" right prescribes action.
A "negative" right proscribes action.

All rights are inherently "neutral"; that is they are not directly "positive" or "negative"; but rather are both, in application.

Under the system of Common Law (as used the the UK, Canada, and Australia, as other certain states of the Commonwealth of Nations); "rights" as understood in possession are "positive". That is all applications of the person exercize is a postive outworking of the people fundamental rights, as freemen.

Codification, and clarification of the Common Law, in contract and order, is negative. That is, they act to proscribe action by the overal social entity which would curtail the positive rights of the people under Common Law.

The US Bill of Rights, for example,. codifies the positive rights of "the people" by proscribing actions of the overal social order (government); thus the codifications are negative, enumerating specific acts the governing entity cannot do, regardless of social pressure or desire of the country as a whole.

This does not mean the "rights" themselves are "negative" (negative and positive only exists as the codification and enumeration); not in their actuality.

People have a right to "life", "property", and "liberty"... These are positive rights.... existing in the non-enumerated "Common Law". Exercize of their freedom of speech, press, religion, are outworkings of the rights to liberty (as a postive right); yet codified "negative" in context of the bill of rights proscribing the action of society as a whole to impinge on the rights persuant to the people's liberty.

What is enumerated in the US Constitution's "Bill of Rights" is not the end-all and be-all of the rights of citizens of these states... For example, the Common Law recognizes a "Right to marriage"; the common law also recognizes a "right to incorporate (or contract)"; these rights are not "enumerated" in the bill of rights; but have continually been placed (under the Common Law system of courts) in those rights "non-enumerated" by the Constitution.