6 ms·

Thanks, but I guess I just don't understand how this concept - negative rights are things that the state shouldn't take away from you - fits the concept of a "

by today20201014 5y ago

Thanks, but I guess I just don't understand how this concept - negative rights are things that the state shouldn't take away from you - fits the concept of a "negative" right given here [0]. Following that definition, negative rights require that some actions are not allowed - the government/state (i.e, society?) takes these actions away. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

mgraczyk 5y ago
The way it would fit: You have a negative right to freedom from the state: the state can't lock you up without a good reason. Also relevant, you have a negative right to your property: someone can't take your property from you. Contrast with a postive-right versions of these two things, right to due process and right to property protection by the police.
- bollu 5y ago
  I don't grok the real difference between the positive and negative rights example. Do these lead to different policy decisions? I'd like to know.
  - esyir 5y ago
    In the property case, my understanding is that people cannot take your property, this you are permitted to defend your property. In the positive rights case, the state extends property protection via the law and police, thereby implicitly granting you property rights. This is a grant, and you are not allowed to defend your own property? That's my rough reading of ops text.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you. If someone violates the negative rights of others, they forfeit theirs. for example, people have a "negative" right to be free of physical violence. If someone uses physical violence an another, that person forfeits their rights, and the state can use violence against them. It can also take away their freedom of movement and incarcerate them.
- today20201014 5y ago
  > The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you. Agreed - rights that are guaranteed by prohibiting certain actions, i.e. you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is prohibited. Compare with: > They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you. The formulation seems a little different: you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is allowed ("the state shouldn't take [$BAR] away from you").

mgraczyk 5y ago

The way it would fit: You have a negative right to freedom from the state: the state can't lock you up without a good reason. Also relevant, you have a negative right to your property: someone can't take your property from you. Contrast with a postive-right versions of these two things, right to due process and right to property protection by the police.

bollu 5y ago
I don't grok the real difference between the positive and negative rights example. Do these lead to different policy decisions? I'd like to know.
- esyir 5y ago
  In the property case, my understanding is that people cannot take your property, this you are permitted to defend your property. In the positive rights case, the state extends property protection via the law and police, thereby implicitly granting you property rights. This is a grant, and you are not allowed to defend your own property? That's my rough reading of ops text.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you. If someone violates the negative rights of others, they forfeit theirs. for example, people have a "negative" right to be free of physical violence. If someone uses physical violence an another, that person forfeits their rights, and the state can use violence against them. It can also take away their freedom of movement and incarcerate them.

today20201014 5y ago
> The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you. Agreed - rights that are guaranteed by prohibiting certain actions, i.e. you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is prohibited. Compare with: > They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you. The formulation seems a little different: you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is allowed ("the state shouldn't take [$BAR] away from you").