How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World [More]I'm mostly in agreement but I don't get how "a positive liberty" is "an obligation imposed upon you by the state." To me, it would be an obligation imposed upon government to do things like "guarantee[ing] to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and achieving ends articulated in the Preamble through the proper use of delegated powers.
I don't have time to argue the point, but do feel free to enlighten me in comments.
3 comments:
Hey Dave,
The two biggest comments that I have seen point out the difference are below:
1) Your exercise of a negative right places no obligation on me; your exercise of positive right does.
That's the difference.
2) Positive "rights" are not rights. They are actually entitlements.
It’s just a historical terminology tradition, same as which political philosophy is “left” or “right.”
A “negative” liberty or right is one where others owe you a duty of inaction — by staying out of the way of your exercising it. They must not stop you from speaking or writing, they must not infringe on your exercise of self-defense (though no one has to provide you a free gun).
A “positive” liberty or right is one where someone else owes you a duty of action, like funds, food, healthcare, an education, a job, a minimum wage, or whatever. They are entitlements from government or even from private individuals — the latter cases are nothing but enforced slavery of those individuals. “I’m hungry, give me lunch money.”
In the US, a resident has a negative right to life, meaning he is allowed to protect his own though you are not required by law to assist him (Seinfeld notwithstanding). However, if that resident is under arrest or imprisoned, he now has a positive right to life with respect to his arresting officer or jailer, who now has a legal duty to defend him from attack, since he has disarmed him and placed him in custody (Logan v. US, 144 US 263, 1892)
Point of order...
Post a Comment