LDS Freedom Forum

libertasbella wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 9:49 pm 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

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:41 pm

libertasbella wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 9:49 pm 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

There are no positive rights. Only negative rights exist.

The misnamed right to an attorney is regulatory, not a positive right. You and I, on a normal day, so not have the right to an attorney. If you want to sue someone, the government is not just going to give you an attorney.

The only time when the government needs to give you an attorney is when they decide to charge you with a crime (usually a serious crime). In other words, if the government wants to prosecute you, then they must give you an attorney. This is a condition of prosecute, not a positive right, as the laws of America do not recognize such a thing.

Fred wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:58 pm

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:41 pm

libertasbella wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 9:49 pm 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

There are no positive rights. Only negative rights exist.

The misnamed right to an attorney is regulatory, not a positive right. You and I, on a normal day, so not have the right to an attorney. If you want to sue someone, the government is not just going to give you an attorney.

The only time when the government needs to give you an attorney is when they decide to charge you with a crime (usually a serious crime). In other words, if the government wants to prosecute you, then they must give you an attorney. This is a condition of prosecute, not a positive right, as the laws of America do not recognize such a thing.

A positive right is the right to defend yourself. This does not require action on anyone's part other than yourself. This right can not be taken away.

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 11:47 pm

Fred wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:58 pm

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:41 pm

libertasbella wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 9:49 pm 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

There are no positive rights. Only negative rights exist.

The misnamed right to an attorney is regulatory, not a positive right. You and I, on a normal day, so not have the right to an attorney. If you want to sue someone, the government is not just going to give you an attorney.

The only time when the government needs to give you an attorney is when they decide to charge you with a crime (usually a serious crime). In other words, if the government wants to prosecute you, then they must give you an attorney. This is a condition of prosecute, not a positive right, as the laws of America do not recognize such a thing.

A positive right is the right to defend yourself. This does not require action on anyone's part other than yourself. This right can not be taken away.

No, that is a negative right. Positive rights are things the government must give you. Does the government give you self defense? Or, is it a negative right, meaning something the government can't interfere with?

Niemand wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 1:38 am Not sure about the store example. Yes, I agree, someone should have the right to be able to feed themselves etc, and the Covid passport etc thing seeks to undermine that, but I can also understand why some shops wouldn't want to let certain people in - I'm thinking of people who are genuine trouble for non-political reasons.

I can understand why a supermarket might not want to let someone in who is very obviously on heroin, and worse for wear, or someone who is behaving in a disgusting matter. I see the Covid passport as an example of obvious discrimination, and I'm not down with that type of thing, but having worked in a shop, I can understand why they wouldn't want to let certain people in.

Niemand wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 1:38 am Not sure about the store example. Yes, I agree, someone should have the right to be able to feed themselves etc, and the Covid passport etc thing seeks to undermine that, but I can also understand why some shops wouldn't want to let certain people in - I'm thinking of people who are genuine trouble for non-political reasons.

I can understand why a supermarket might not want to let someone in who is very obviously on heroin, and worse for wear, or someone who is behaving in a disgusting matter. I see the Covid passport as an example of obvious discrimination, and I'm not down with that type of thing, but having worked in a shop, I can understand why they wouldn't want to let certain people in.