[libertasbella]

The difference between negative vs positive rights is that one requires action while the other requires inaction. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something.

You may hear negative rights referred to as “liberties,” and that’s because they are basic human and civil rights stating that no one can interfere with our right to obtain something through trade or bartering.

Positive rights are often called “entitlements” because they are things that someone must provide to us, whether we’ve earned them or not. We don’t have to do anything to obtain positive rights; they’re granted to us.

A great example would be a person’s individual right to purchase something from a store. Some might think this is a positive right, but it’s actually a negative right. You have the right to go to the store and purchase a meal, provided you can pay for that meal. As a result, it’s your negative right to ensure that no one interferes with that.

Other negative rights are:

• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of speech
• Property rights

If you go there with money to pay for the meal, provide that money to the clerk, then the store worker must provide you with that meal.

A positive right refers to something that must be provided to you. For example, when you’re arrested, the police officer says:

“You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you.”

That is a positive right.

You have the right to an attorney whether you can afford one or not; they’re required to provide that to you. That would be an entitlement. Even though you’ve done something wrong (allegedly), they are required to provide you with an attorney, which is a positive right.

There are many social and economic positive rights, as well. Housing, public education, national security, health care, social security, and certain standards of living are all positive rights. The government is required to provide you with these, even if you’re unable to provide them for yourself.

When we compare positive vs. negative rights, the negative right is not to be subjected to an action of another person. Meaning, you cannot coerce someone into providing you with something. A negative right only exists until someone negates it. You cannot force someone to provide something to you; your negative rights only exist as long as you can provide something yourself; it is not an entitlement but rather a liberty.

Positive rights, on the other hand, are subject to another person or group performing the action. To have a positive right, someone else must perform an action that is offering something to the situation. Where a negative right is requiring the person not to perform, a positive right requires them to perform.

Look at it this way:

A negative right forbids someone from committing and action against your rights.
A positive right obligates someone to act in accordance with your rights.

The distinction of positive and negative rights is practiced most prominently by Libertarians who believe that you can only create positive duties through the use of a contract. Many Liberal Democracies believe in negative rights, but they don’t all support positive rights. Regardless of each belief system, positive rights are usually guaranteed through laws.

Continue reading Negative vs. Positive Rights: Fundamentals and Criticisms on libertasbella.com

[Pants-of-dog]

Property rights are positive rights.

Just ask any Indigenous person.

[mum]

Kinda, It depends how it came about doesn't it ?
I think the post does not include theft of land from indigenous peoples.

[Pants-of-dog]

The imposition of capitalism in the Americas was definitely an exercise in positive rights insofar as the state compelled Indigenous groups to support capitalism and European property rights, and did so at gunpoint.

Because of this, it is historically incorrect to argue that property rights are a negative right.

Even for people who own land the legal way in capitalism, they only do so because a file exists somewhere that states who owns the deed to the land and courts and judges and a whole infrastructure of people and laws that declare a person’s rights to property. And all these people and infrastructure are paid with tax dollars, which is also an imposition and therefore is a positive right.

[mum]

I guess you could bundle it all up like that.
You could also separate those things. I would ask, is it possible to legitimately own some property in a way that does not require the actions of others ?
In a libertarian anarchist utopia (where of course everyone broadly agrees to such a system), could property deeds be kept on a blockchain without the need for tax funded offices/bureaucrats to manage it ?
Perhaps a few different private companies or non-profits manage some aspect of it, like we see with some things in today's society.
It's an interesting thought experiment.

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess you could bundle it all up like that.
You could also separate those things. I would ask, is it possible to legitimately own some property in a way that does not require the actions of others ?

No, not in our current world with our current history.

Perhaps in some unforeseeable future where history has gone in a radically different direction, but not now.

In a libertarian anarchist utopia (where of course everyone broadly agrees to such a system), could property deeds be kept on a blockchain without the need for tax funded offices/bureaucrats to manage it ?
Perhaps a few different private companies or non-profits manage some aspect of it, like we see with some things in today's society.
It's an interesting thought experiment.

Yes, a lot of speculative fiction been written about it. I quite enjoyed The Probability Broach.

[wat0n]

How can interference on the enjoyment of liberties can be prevented without concrete action?

The very act of "forbidding" something requires an enforcement that is usually exercised by the State.

[mum]

No, not in our current world with our current history.

Perhaps in some unforeseeable future where history has gone in a radically different direction, but not now.


Yes, a lot of speculative fiction been written about it. I quite enjoyed The Probability Broach.

Absolutely, libertarians (minarchists and anarchists alike) necessarily think in the unforeseeable future. As long as most people believe they need a "parent" state actor to keep them safe and tell them what to do, this will be the case. Definitely not now, definitely not soon.

[mum]

How can interference on the enjoyment of liberties can be prevented without concrete action?

The very act of "forbidding" something requires an enforcement that is usually exercised by the State.

Absolutely correct, concrete action is required. And yes "usually". Some places people need to employ private security because the cops are broken.. so at least the general idea seems workable.

[wat0n]

Absolutely correct, concrete action is required. And yes "usually". Some places people need to employ private security because the cops are broken.. so at least the general idea seems workable.

Right, but that effort goes beyond simply policing. We take this for granted, but policing is irrelevant if the people who may want to infringe on your property rights are organized like a military and have the hardware of a military.

[mum]

You are correct of course. Having a tax funded military or a voluntarily funded military is also no guarantee against that either.

[Pants-of-dog]

Absolutely, libertarians (minarchists and anarchists alike) necessarily think in the unforeseeable future. As long as most people believe they need a "parent" state actor to keep them safe and tell them what to do, this will be the case. Definitely not now, definitely not soon.

A libertarian society is not possible even if people believed that the state is unnecessary.

This is because capitalism, as it has evolved, requires a state to provide the things necessary for capitalism to stay alive.

You would need world history to change in such a way that capitalism develops all over again, but without a state to support it.

Imagine going all the way back to the feudal era and starting all over again but without the nation-state.