In a previous blog post about classical liberalism I mentioned the concepts of "positive rights" and "negative rights". What are they?
Regardless of their misleading names, they do not stand for something like "good rights" and "bad rights". In this context "negative" means a right that forbids others (especially the government) from doing something to you ("do not do this"), while a "positive" right compels others (usually the government) to do something ("do this").
A negative right compels inactivity. A positive right compels activity.
Freedom of speech is the quintessential example of a "negative right". This is because it forbids/stops others (primarily the government) from doing something to you, who has this right. More particularly, it forbids the government from punishing, deterring or silencing you because of your expression of opinion. This is not a "positive right" because it doesn't force the government to do something for you. Instead, it forbids the government from doing something to you.
The right to private property is another "negative right": It does not force the government to do something for you, but it stops the government from taking your property away from you.
An example of a "positive right" is public healthcare (at least if it has been legislated as a citizen right): It forces the government to actively offer a service to citizens. The same goes for example for free education.
A minimum wage is also an example of a positive right. This is because it forces companies to pay their employees a minimum amount of salary (ie. it forces companies to do something).
The so-called "Bill of Rights" of the United States, ie. the ten first amendments to the Constitution, are a mixture of negative and positive rights, but mostly consisting of the former, usually easily distinguishable by whether the word "no" appears in the text:
Not all positive rights can be considered bad by any rational ideology. For example, the government actively protecting its citizens from harm via a police force is a positive right (because it compels the government to actively do something), and most people would agree that this is a good thing.
Also some negative rights can be contentious. The right to gun ownership would be your quintessential example. Should you have the right to freely own, for example, nuclear weapons, or should this be restricted by the government?
Regardless of their misleading names, they do not stand for something like "good rights" and "bad rights". In this context "negative" means a right that forbids others (especially the government) from doing something to you ("do not do this"), while a "positive" right compels others (usually the government) to do something ("do this").
A negative right compels inactivity. A positive right compels activity.
Freedom of speech is the quintessential example of a "negative right". This is because it forbids/stops others (primarily the government) from doing something to you, who has this right. More particularly, it forbids the government from punishing, deterring or silencing you because of your expression of opinion. This is not a "positive right" because it doesn't force the government to do something for you. Instead, it forbids the government from doing something to you.
The right to private property is another "negative right": It does not force the government to do something for you, but it stops the government from taking your property away from you.
An example of a "positive right" is public healthcare (at least if it has been legislated as a citizen right): It forces the government to actively offer a service to citizens. The same goes for example for free education.
A minimum wage is also an example of a positive right. This is because it forces companies to pay their employees a minimum amount of salary (ie. it forces companies to do something).
The so-called "Bill of Rights" of the United States, ie. the ten first amendments to the Constitution, are a mixture of negative and positive rights, but mostly consisting of the former, usually easily distinguishable by whether the word "no" appears in the text:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...": Negative right.
- "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed": Negative right.
- "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law": Negative right.
- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...": Negative right.
- "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...": Negative right
- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...": Positive right.
- "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.": Both.
- "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted": Negative right.
- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people": Negative right.
- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people": Negative right.
Not all positive rights can be considered bad by any rational ideology. For example, the government actively protecting its citizens from harm via a police force is a positive right (because it compels the government to actively do something), and most people would agree that this is a good thing.
Also some negative rights can be contentious. The right to gun ownership would be your quintessential example. Should you have the right to freely own, for example, nuclear weapons, or should this be restricted by the government?
Comments
Post a Comment