Talk:Negative and positive rights/Negative right talk archive

This is a record of the old Talk:Negative right page. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job - I like the 3rd paragraph. Evercat 20:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the last paragraph. Holding that you have some particular negative right doesn't mean that you believe that you have a right to make others protect you from having that right violated. That would mean you had double standard, in that you say you have negative rights, but someone else doesn't and therefore it's ok for you to coerce him to protect your negative rights. This would be an akward position to hold, and i doubt many people do hold it. So, I'm thinking about deleting the paragraph. (RJII) Dec 23 2004


 * An unprotected right is no right at all. If anyone can kill you without being held accountable, then your right to life is non-existent. In any case, notice that the last paragraph explains a criticism of the notion of negative rights - not a view held by those who believe that negative rights exist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Thus, negative rights can be seen as rights to protection from certain things." I don't think that makes sense. A right to be "protected" would be a "positive right." A right to not be subject to violence from others is a negative right. If someone "sees" a right to have someone protect them as a "negative right" it's just neglect of the difference between negative and positive rights. I think that paragraph needs to go, or at least some major modification. (RJII)


 * How can you have a right "not be subject to violence from others" if this right is not protected? I can declare to have any right I want, but if that right is not enforced, it's just empty talk. Any negative right is just a theoretical concept, with no practical value whatsoever, unless it is backed by active protection. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell it looks like you're assuming that the only way to protect your negative right to be free from violence is to force someone else to protect you. Sure, it's smart to protect a negative right to not be subject to violence. So, I can defend myself or I can ask or pay someone to protect me. Defending that right does in no way mean that I have the right to make someone else defend it. Maybe you're not clear on exactly what the difference is between the concepts of negative and positive rights? If I have a negative right to not be subject to violence then, naturally, I have the right to prevent someone from violating that right. "Active protection" has nothing to do with positive rights, because you're not making someone perform a positive action. What you are doing is is protecting your negative rights by preventing someone from taking a positive action. A positive right is the right to make someone do something, which is different than the right to prevent someone from doing something. RJII 00:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're not clear on the usual (legal) definition of "rights". A legal right, in order to exist, must be recognized and protected by government (in other words, by an "organization with a monopoly on the use of force in a certain geographical area", as you libertarians would say). Government protection is a positive action. If you have a right to life or a right to property written down in the constitution, that means you have a right to make the government protect your life or property. It is therefore a positive right.
 * You can always say that you have a "right to life", but if that right is not protected by government, you only have it as long as you can protect it yourself - or as long as you can pay someone else to protect it for you. This is not a "right" in the normal sense of the word, because it is not universal and it is not inalienable. It is a "temporary right" or a "conditional right" at best. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This doesn't show any understanding or acknowledgement of what I've been saying. I have to delete the paragraph. One thing you should be aware of is that the concept of rights isn't only in regard to political rights, but moral rights as well. An example you're probably aware of is Thomas Jefferson's when he says that rights are "inalienable," indicating that he thinks that moral rights exist (such as liberty) whether or not government is protecting them. And, that the purpose of establishing government is to protect these moral rights. If moral rights did not exist, then he would have provided no justification for the existence of government. RJII 22:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't show any understanding or acknowledgement of what I've been saying either. But the thing is, such understanding isn't necessary. You cannot remove an argument from a wiki article simply because you don't consider it valid. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's invalid, but that as far as I can tell, it's incoherent. RJII 00:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Now let me try to explain this one more time: For all practical concerns, a right exists only insofar as it is protected by government. Your "moral rights" are an intellectual construct with no substance in reality. Personally, I do not believe in the existence of these "moral rights" any more than I believe in Santa Claus. The government exists as a result of the social contract. But that's another argument. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You may not beleve in moral rights, but many people do. Don't force the article to only allign with your POV. But, even if one is only referring to political rights, the idea of the paragraph is bizarre. What on Earth does protecting a negative right have to do with positive rights? Let's say you're paying someone to protecting your negative rights ..for example, he's standing in front of your house making sure no one breaks in. Where do you make the leap you seem to be making concerning positive rights? So what if "a right exists only insofar as it is protected by government"? What exactly does that have to do with positive rights? RJII 00:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand your statements. Is it that you think that the only way to protect a negative right is to force someone else to protect it? If so, you're in error. You can always ask someone, or pay someone to protect it, or even defend yourself. RJII 01:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is so difficult to understand. A right exists only if it is protected by the government, and government protection requires positive actions (at the very least, people must pay taxes to support a police force that protects your negative rights). If your rights are not protected by the government, and you have to pay a guard to stand in front of your house and fight off robbers, then the only law is the law of the jungle, and might makes right.
 * But your failure to comprehend my point is ultimately irrelevant. I have re-written the third paragraph to make clear the fact that it expresses a certain view rather than any established truth, and I have re-added it to the article. You have no grounds on which to censor this view and remove it from the article - the wiki is supposed to present as many views as possible on any given subject. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "censor" anything. What you're saying makes no sense and seems very irrelevant. I assume you're talking about a political or legal right here (as opposed to a moral one). A political right is one that exists by decree of law. It's not relevant whether government protects it or not. For example, in the US you have the right to free speech by decree of law. Now, if someone comes along and covers your mouth while you're trying to talk, and the police don't show up to relieve you of the attack, you still had the right to free speech. It's just that your right was being violated. The legal right still exists even if it's not protected. Or are you talking about moral rights? If that's the case then you may have the beginning of some kind of philosophical argument. But even then, a moral right by definition is one that exists in a moral sense rather than a physical one, so it wouldn't make much sense in regard to that either. But as far as legal rights, of course they exist even if they're not physically protected. From what I'm getting it seems that what you may be trying to say, but improperly, is that a right is useless or irrelevant if it's not protected. Well...duh. RJII 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone comes along and covers your mouth while you're trying to talk, you can later initiate legal action in court against that aggressor. Even if the police don't show up on the spot, the state will take a positive action at a later date to ensure that you receive compensation for the fact that your right was violated.
 * And yes, the fact that a right is useless and irrelevant if it's not protected is exactly what I'm trying to say. Congratulations on finally getting the point. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you say that? What you do say is very strange and doensn't make much sense. It's amazing I was able to get a grasp on what you were trying to say. I'll try to reword it then if you don't. RJII 03:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"negative right can be seen as a right to be provided with something (in this case, protection) by the positive action of another." <-- what the hell is this supposed to mean? A negative right can NEVER be seen as a right to be provided with something. That would be the definition of a POSITIVE right. RJII 03:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand my arguments, too bad. That doesn't give you license to censor them. Here's what we're going to do: I'm going to keep reverting the page until you stop removing the paragraph and either (a) propose to reformulate the argument in a way that is both neutral and satisfactory to both parties, or (b) write an opposing view of your own. Of course, you can't do either of those things as long as you don't understand what I'm trying to say. That is most unfortunate, but I've done my best to explain it, and arrived at the conclusion that you are most likely faking ignorance. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well you're wrong to think I'm faking ignorance. I truly do not know what it is you're trying to say. So, I can't reword it to make sense. Maybe someone else can come in and explain what your point is. So, I'm going to keep reverting as well. An article should not have content that doesn't make sense. All I can figure out is maybe you don't have an intuitive grasp on what a negative right is, and your skewed understanding is the background you're basing your words on, and that that's why your words aren't coming through as meaning anything. Do you agree with the definition at the top of the article? RJII 22:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you're mad. Seriously. I'm going to call a neutral 3rd party. Now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are unwilling to answer my question and see if we agree on what a negative right is. So, please do bring in a neutral third party. Either I'm mad, you're confused, or you don't know how to express yourself. RJII 00:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already explained myself in the older discussion above. Re-read it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside observer's observations from... outside
Hello, I'm a third party. I think that you both (RJ and MT) basically make sense, but seem to be talking past each other, or at cross-purposes, or some other metaphor for not really communicating.

I'm getting from MT a real strong message that negative rights, without any kind of social structure set up to reinforce them, are pretty meaningless. Standing in a jungle, alone, unarmed, not part of a social unit, and theorizing about your abstract right to be free from attack by wild animals? Foolishness. Get a stick and sharpen it, buddy; might makes right out here. Right to life and liberty in an anarchic state, with no enforcement of laws? Those words won't feed you, or keep you warm.

The social structures we tend to set up to reinforce our rights include:


 * Direct protection, e.g., by police on the beat
 * Removal (by locking up, exiling or killing) of those who show a tendency to violate their neighbors' negative rights
 * Offering a positive right to restitution of some kind when one's negative right has been violated, preferably according to some fixed code.

The first of these is the most diffuse and least reliable; courts in the US have generally decided that people do not have a general right to police protection from crime! (This is one of the NRA's favorite legal facts to cite.) The best protection of your negative rights is ordinary caution and vigilance - good locks can make so much else unnecessary.

Anyway, RJ seems to refuse to accept that the negative right can be identified with any concommitant positive right that is offered in support of the negative right. Not only are the two not the same, but nobody would make that mistake, RJ seems to be saying. For example:


 * "negative right can be seen as a right to be provided with something (in this case, protection) by the positive action of another." <-- what the hell is this supposed to mean? A negative right can NEVER be seen as a right to be provided with something. That would be the definition of a POSITIVE right.

See, while a negative right may be reinforced through the granting of some positive right, the negative right doesn't actually become that positive right, it still maintains a clear separate identity; and why would someone try to conflate the two?

Now, I think of MT, and I think of how, since without some reinforcing positive right, the negative right is actually an effectively empty concept, one finds all of the effective meaning of the negative right precisely in the reinforcing positive right. Therefore, the negative right is nothing more than an abstract way of looking at a positive right, which is what's really there. [Cue visions of Aristotle and his four causes, on horses...]

I guess there's a fairly deep philosophical disagreement there, and I'm not surprised at the communication breakdown. Does existence precede essence? Gosh, I dunno. Allow me to suggest the following rewrite for your consideration:

In order to maintain negative rights, a society generally establishes some kind of system of laws which reinforce citizens' rights. These laws generally include:


 * Direct protection, for example, by police.
 * Removal (by incarceration, execution or exile) or attempted rehabilitation of those who show a tendency to violate the rights of others.
 * Restitution to the person whose right was violated. This may take the form of some payment of damages, for example.

Thus, a negative right (to be free from some negative action), can be given support by the offering of a positive right (to restitution in case of violation). Some would even argue that the negative right, unenforceable without some accompanying positive right, is meaningless, and that the negative right's true essence is the accompanying positive right. Others would argue that the negative right has a moral existence which precedes the existence of laws offering positive rights. See also logical priority.

(Redlink under "logical priority"? That's too bad...)

I invite any corrections from either of you if I misrepresented either of you, or if my proposed rewrite violates your POV. I assure you that my intention is to get the best posssible article written. GTBacchus 09:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for intervening. Yes, you have my position correct. And, you seem to be rewording accurately, from what I can tell, MT's position. And what I have a problem with is statements like this "Some would even argue that the negative right, unenforceable without some accompanying positive right, is meaningless, and that the negative right's true essence is the accompanying positive right." That statement is incoherent to me. Because, a right does not have to be enforced to be a right. Sure, what good is having a right if it's not being protected by you or anyone else? But, a right is still a right. If a constitution says you have a legal right to free speech, then you have a legal right to free speech just by it saying that. MT's claim would be that that right does not exist if no one is protecting it. I say, well look right there in the document; there is the right; what do you mean it doesn't exist? What MT seems to be arguing is so bizarre (for lack of a nicer word), that I doubt there is any serious writers that would argue such a thing. Saying that a right is worthless if it's not being protected is one thing, but saying that a right does not exist if it is not protected is entirely devoid of understanding of what a right is. Get my drift? So, if her strange claim is going to be in the article, I demand a published source that argues such a thing. And she says "most negative rights can only be enforced through some form of positive action (or the threat thereof)." I mean, how inane is that? Of course defending a right requires DOING something. That's trivially true, and as such, deserves no space in the article. And she says: "Thus, arguably, even a negative right can be seen as a right to be provided with something (in this case, protection) by the positive action of another." As you noted earlier, my response to this is that would be the definition of a positive right. MT does not have a grasp on what a negative and positive right is. So, I demand a source for this claim that a negative right has the same definition that a positive right does.  RJII 16:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's him, not her. I happen to be male. Second, I fully agree with GTBacchus, and I will try to rework my paragraph along his proposed outline. As I suspected, you do understand my argument, but you simply consider it wrong and therefore refuse to include it in the article. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a certain POV. You call my argument bizarre - and I call your argument absurd. A right has to be more than just something written on a piece of paper. If I take a piece of paper and write "I have the right to cheese" on it, does that have any value? Of course not. A right that exists only on paper is a worthless right. If you demand a source for my argument, I demand a source for your claim that anything written on a piece of paper can be considered a right. Finally, I'd like to point out that wikipedia is not paper, and, as such, there are no concerns regarding "space" in the article. I will go ahead and point out that protecting a right requires DOING something. If you consider that self-evident, good. It means you have no objections to it. After all, why should you care if I say self-evident things or point out the obvious? We're not wasting any paper. Humor me, and everyone goes home happy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide a source for something I say here. Things that are in the article are what need to be sourced for them to remain, if challenged. Look what you said "A right that exists only on paper is a worthless right." You didn't say it's not a right, but that it's a worthless right. Well, worthless or not, it's still a right. The U.S. Constitution lists rights. A right is not an action. A right is a THING ..a stated LEGAL or MORAL privilege to act or not act. If you have a legal right to speak, but you don't speak, you still have that right. Likewise, if you have a legal right to speak but someone muzzles you, you still have a legal right to speak. It's just that someone is violating that right. Someone muzzling you does not eliminate the right. The right is still there in the legal document (or conversely it's still there in the metaphysical world if you're talking about moral rights). So, what you've been saying makes no sense if you understand what a right is. And your trying to equate negative rights with positive rights is very strange indeed. You saying that a negative right can be seen as a right to be provided with something. Well, suprise, that's the definition of a positive right. A negative right CANNOT be seen as a positive right. Anyway, if any of this still escapes you, I request that you provide a source for your strange argument if you're going to put it in the article. RJII 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm just as annoyed with all this bickering as you are, which is why I think the sooner we reach a compromise, the better. So here's my proposed compromise: I give up the argument that some negative rights are in practice identical to positive rights if you agree to allow the (self-evident, in your opinion) statement that some negative rights require active enforcement. I consider this point important, and you consider it irrelevant - therefore, you have nothing to lose by allowing it in the article. Do we have a deal? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I can't agree to that. Because, if no one is violating such a right, then it does not need enforcement. If I have a right to grow my hair long but no one tries to stop me, and there are no hair police milling about to make sure no one does try to stop me, I still have that right. The existence of a right is not contingent on it being enforced whatsoever. RJII
 * If no people try to stop you from growing your hair long, then you can grow your hair long regardless of whether you have a right to it or not. Your right only comes into play when someone does try to stop you. But I have already agreed to stop arguing on that - notice that my new edit no longer mentions the question of whether unenforced negative rights exist or not. Merely that, in practice, they need to be enforced. But here's one final compromise: I will say that if negative rights are violated, THEN they need enforcement. This is being more than reasonable. Do we have a deal now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, my right does not all of a sudden spontaneously generate when someone tries to stop me from growing my hair. Either the right was there in the first place or it was not. And, if there is no law in books that declares, in some words, that I have a right to grow my hair (and there is no metaphysical law that says so) then I don't have the right to grow my hair. The sufficient and necessary condition for a right to exist is that's it's either stated legally or exists metaphysically. Otherwise, there are no rights. RJII 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. Let me put this another way: Either (A) someone tries to stop you from growing your hair long, or (B) no one tries to stop you. If B, then it doesn't matter whether you have a right to long hair or not. In B, there is no practical difference between having or not having that right. The difference only appears in A. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But, rights aren't practical things. So that doesn't really matter. RJII 20:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're not practical, then they're practically worthless. That's my view. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So your view is that rights are worthless. Ok, that's POV. If you can find some sourced argument out there that says that rights are worthless then fine, as long as you note that it's someone's POV. RJII 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, my view is that unenforced rights are worthless. But whatever. The article has evolved beyond that stage - now we're just debating for the sake of the debate. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And that's your POV. Don't put your POV in the article on whether unenforced rights are worth anything or not. You know? RJII 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But it looks like we're reaching a compromise on the article! This is good news! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume a final compromise has been reached? Excellent! Cheers! See, I'm not unreasonable, and we can still be friends. ;) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not yet. RJII 21:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it looks like we narrowed it down to one sentence: "This may sometimes be seen as similar to the kind of intervention required to secure a positive right.". I have compromised extensively and accepted most of your edits. Now please accept this point of mine and we can finish this debate. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to compromise to the extent that the article suffers. I'd like to see a source for your claim that "This may sometimes be seen as similar to the kind of intervention required to secure a positive right." Who sees this besides you? That claim ignores the very concept of negative and positive liberty. RJII 22:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How does the article suffer? And I sincerely doubt I'm the only one who thinks intervention is intervention. I'll go look for sources, but the argument is valid - and quite common sense. Would I need a source for the argument that, say, the Sun is bright? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It defies common sense, as far as I can tell. And, no you wouldn't need a source to say the Sun is bright. Read up on Wikipedia policy regarding "original research." RJII 23:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's put in both views: "Some see this as the same kind of intervention required to secure a positive right, while others..." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I don't believe that anyone "sees this as the same kind of intervention" besides you. I demand a source for this claim. RJII 00:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that fact is self-evident, just like you believe that "a negative right does not place an obligation on others to protect that right". Do you have any sources for your claim that a negative right doesn't have to be protected? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My statement that "a negative right does not place an obligation on others to protect that right" is just a reiteration of the definition. A negative right does not require others to act. It does the opposite. It requires people to NOT act. Maybe this is where your problem is. You haven't grasped what a negative right or positive right is. A right that requires that some provide something to someone ..such as rights protection would be a positive right..not a negative right, by definition. In addition, you say that "some see this as the same kind of intervention required to secure a positive right." But, it's only you who sees that, because you don't know what negative and positive rights are. If a government was acting to secure a negative right then it would repel action --negating their action. If it's acting to secure a positive right, then it would compel action --making them act. These are not the same kinds of intervention, obviously. You're trying to make negative rights the same as positive rights is absurd. I demand a source for your bizarre claims. RJII 13:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As you have yourself observed numerous times, negative rights are in practice identical to positive rights. That is my point. It's not that I don't understand the concept of negative rights, it's that I believe this concept to be absurd and ridiculous. You want a source for the idea that there is no practical difference between positive and negative rights? There you go: The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes, by Stephen Holmes -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not agreed that negative rights in practice are identical to positive rights. What makes you say that? All I agreed to was that to protect a negative right requires that you defend yourself if someone tries to violate it.Anyway, now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You think that the concept of negative rights is absurd and ridiculous. Well, that's your POV. The concept still exists. And, it's the job of this article to describe what that concept is. It's not your job to cloud the issue so no one knows what the hell you're talking about. A negative right is a legal or moral precept that says others have a legal or moral obligation to refrain from restricting your freedom of action. A negative right is NOT a positive right. Who are you to claim absurdity when you are trying to claim that two opposites are the same thing? RJII 20:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You should have accepted the compromises I kept proposing. Instead, you kept insisting that I provide a reference. So I went and found one in less than half an hour. See above, and see also my most recent edit to the article. You're welcome to add the opposing POV - if you have a reference, of course. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Mihnea's point could be put in a separate section called "criticism of negative rights" or something? It certainly isn't fair to say that "no one knows" what he's talking about, because of the three in this conversation, it's transparent to two of us. GTBacchus 20:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Good find, on that source. I found that one, too. I also found several people online making arguments identical to Mihnea's, that negative rights on their own are vacuous, until they're supported by positive rights. (To be fair, these people were in arguments with people making arguments like RJ's.) If you need backup for the claim that things don't really exist if they have no effect in the world (that "practical purposes" are all that there is), you can start with David Hume, and continue with everyone who's been opposed to metaphysics, right up to Richard Rorty. At that point, though, you'll have departed entirely from a moral universalism that's usually assumed if you're talking about theory of rights in the first place. The idea that this type of thinking is in any way new or bizarre is just wrong, RJ, and indicates that you've only ever interacted meaningfully with Aristotelians, which seems a shame. That modern ideas are difficult to understand, I'll grant you. Ontology gets messy when one gets serious about it. Truly though, when one departs from Platonism and essences, negative rights are one of the first things to go. It's like the optical illusion where you see a square, but all that's there are four shapes suggesting the corners of the square - negative rights exist in the negative space implied by the positive rights which really exist, because they really translate into direct action. That's how I see it, anyway, and I'm not all that unusual. GTBacchus 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're making the same error as Minhea when you say that "negative rights on their own are vacuous, until they're supported by positive rights." While it's true that negative rights are worthless unless they're protected (of course), that's not the same thing as saying that one has a right to have those negative rights protected by others (in other words, a positive right). RJII 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How can I make this clear? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU DISAGREE WITH THE VIEW I AM PRESENTING. The point is that the view itself exists, I have references for it, and it should not be censored. If you think it's an "error" or simply fail to comprehend it, that's your problem. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been saying to you. Just because you think that a negative right is the same thing as a positive right doens't mean you can put that in the article. You need a source. You have not provided one. I demand a quote from that book, (or a review of it) that says that a negative right, in practice, is the same thing as a positive right. That position is so absurd, I doubt you'll ever find any serious writer saying such a thing. Let me say to you, what I said to GTBaccchus. Saying that a right is worthless unless it's protected (which is so obvious I don't know why anyone would waste the time writing a book about it) is not the same thing as saying that you have a right to be provided with protection by others (a positive right). RJII


 * This sentence of yours, RJ, I agree with 100%: "Saying that a right is worthless unless it's protected is not the same thing as saying that you have a right to be provided with protection by others (a positive right)." What the first statement does imply is that "IF a negative right is to be rendered meaningful in a society, THEN it must be by the creation of a positive right to protection."  The leap from that to "The negative right is nothing more than the positive right to protection" is more difficult... GTBacchus 20:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. But I'll humor you. Here's a quote from a review posted on Amazon.com:
 * "Holmes and Sunstein offer a powerful challenge to liberal and conservative shibboleths about the distinction between negative and positive liberty." - Jeffrey Rosen, Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic
 * Negative and positive liberty isn't the same thing as negative and positive rights. Positive liberty is the liberty to act. A positive right is the right to be provided with something by the act of someone else. RJII 22:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've found yet another reference, this time in the form on an online article, for my argument: (it may be necessary to scroll down or search the page for "negative rights"). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, you requested a quote. Here's one:
 * " Philosophers also distinguish between liberty and the value of liberty. Liberty has little value if those who ostensibly posess it lack the resources to make their rights effective. Freedom to hire a lawyer means little if all lawyers charge fees, if the state will not help, and if you have no money. The right to private property, an important part of liberty, means little if you lack the resources to protect what you own and the police are unavailable. Only liberties that are valuable in practice lend legitimacy to a liberal political order."
 * That quote does not say that negative and positive rights in practice are the same thing, or anything like that. RJII 20:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (In response to RJ): First of all, you'll note that those words you quoted as my error weren't mine, I was paraphrasing an argument I found online. On the other hand, the claim that unsupported negative rights are vacuous is NOT identical with the claim that negative rights imply a positive right to enforcement.  It's simply the claim that a certain concept is vacuous.
 * Being careful, let's walk through this. The argument runs as follows: (A) Negative rights alone are vacuous until they're enforced.  (B) Things that don't have any effect in the world don't really exist, and when people talk about them, they're really talking about something that has some effect in the world. (C) That thing whose existence gives support to the otherwise illusory notion of "negative rights" are the positive rights to enforcement that we're talking about.  Therefore (D) What people think of as negative rights are actually positive rights, set up with the purpose of giving meaning to the concept of negative rights.
 * Now, where in that argument is there a problem? (It certainly belongs somewhere separate from the definition of "negative rights", which takes place in a context of moral universalism anyway.) GTBacchus 20:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just the fact that something exists means it's having an effect on the world, because it is part of that world. It's mere addition to the world, whether it affects anything else in the world, is an effect on the world --it changes the world simply by coming into being. Ultimately, a right exists as a concept. The concept of a negative right exists regardless of whether or not anyone is taking action to defend it. Whether it's being enforced it's still there ..the concept still exists. Anyway, what Minhea is trying to do is say that a negative right *IS* a positive right. RJII 21:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See, now we're delving deep into philosophical matters. I am admittedly far less familiar with metaphysics than GTBacchus is, but I will try to sum up his point in one question: Can abstract concepts be said to have a real existence, or are they just things in our heads? A negative right cannot manifest itself directly in the physical world - only a positive right can. Thus, one may ask the question, "Does the negative right exist at all?". In response, another may ask "What do you mean by existence?". And you see where this is heading. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The concept has existence. The concept of negative rights exists, whether you want to wish it away or not. If someone has such a concept then he may want to implement his concept into a political system; he enacts laws which accord with the concept. Then, negative rights not only have existence as a concept but have existence in law. And, if he wants to be sure that this right that he invented is protected, he does what he has to to protect his new right. Maybe what you're trying to say that negative rights are no guarantee of positive liberty unless negative rights are protected, given human nature to violate negative rights. Now THAT would make sense. Rights are human constructs, and it is absurd to say that what they construct does not exist. RJII 14:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Right
You only have the rights which you are able to defend. 16:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? A right still exists even if it's not defended. That's what a right is. RJII 19:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * For all practical purposes, there is no difference between having an undefended right and not having that right at all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Practical purposes whatever ...that doesn't matter. RJII 03:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Think about Feinberg's "Nowheresville".

Objective Right vs. Negative Liberty
There seems to be some kind of mixup. Objective rights correspond Negative liberty, while Subjective rights correspond Positive liberty. Somebody has confused the terms and has taken "negative" from "negative liberty" and "right" from "objective rights". 213.243.155.254 4 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
 * I think that's Objectivist terminology for negative and positive rights isn't it? RJII 17:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "subjective" and "objective" rights are terms used in legal theory, please make a search with Google, and compare to the results you get with "positive" and "negative" rights (excluding of course the articles of Wikipedia and its clones.)

A novel suggestion
Here's an idea that no one here seems to have thought of: research the concept of positive and negative rights. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of existing knowledge, not a place to present original research or a forum for political arguments/advocacy. Why doesn't one of you go to the library and find some books about the concept? Write an article describing the concepts people have put forward for the idea of "positive" and "negative" "rights". Describe what the concepts are, even if you think they are stupid or absurd. Then put in a description of how established critics have criticized the concepts&mdash;don't include your own arguments. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to be done. &mdash; Mateo SA | talk 17:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. RJII 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Sorry for not doing my homework sooner. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

a rather good read
Human Rights at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

-GTBacchus(talk) 18:58, July 20, 2005 (signature added 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Taking down the worldwide view thingy
There's no discussion here relating to an insufficiently global definition. The appropriate tag should have been NPOV, but it looks like there's no new arguments for this for quite some time now; also the article is correct from my educational perspective, FWIW. - Anon

Last paragraph, first sentence
RJII, you changed the following sentence:


 * Some analyists maintain that negative rights cannot be maintained except in the presence of positive rights to their protection and enforcement.

to read:


 * Some analyists maintain that negative rights cannot be maximized except by encroaching on negative liberty.

I honestly don't understand your version. Can you explain it to me - maybe that's the same thing MT and I were saying, maybe not. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only way you can have a society where everyone's "negative rights" are respected is one where there is no government --that is, a situation where your liberty was being protected was by voluntarily-funded institutions. I haven't read the book that's source but it looks to me like it's saying that you can't enjoy negative rights unless you have a tax-funded government protecting them. Since that requires taxation, that requires some sacrifice of negative liberty in order to to protect a larger quantity of negative liberty. The previous statement makes no sense as far as I can tell when it talks about "positive rights" in this context. Maybe you could explain that to me because I don't get it. RJII 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We've been over this. What is a positive right? A right that must be provided by a tax-funded government. The book makes the case that negative rights, too, must be provided by a tax-funded government and therefore there is no practical distinction between them and positive rights. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying that in order to protect your "negative rights" you should have a government protecting them for you isn't the same thing as saying you have a right to being provided with that protection. See? RJII 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We've been over this already. Read above. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Time to go over it again. This is Wikipedia. It never ends. You're not seeing that that source isn't making a claim about "positive rights." Saying that you can't enjoy negative rights without protection doesn't mean to you have a positive right to that protection. RJII 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're making the same arguments as before. Thus, I can only reply by saying the same thing I've said before. By the way, is it your custom to change your mind and reject a consensus you once endorsed? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My mind is constantly in flux, so is consensus. RJII 01:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
Perhaps we would do better to have a single article Negative and positive rights and have Negative right and Positive right be redirects? It is very hard to talk about either of these concepts without continually contrasting the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Could I ask those of you who are busy edit-warring over this to at least respond to my suggestion? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. It can always be split up again in the future if the article gets too big. RJII 00:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea, as the most active participant on the other side, what do you think? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. That would settle all the disputes over what content should go where. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I recommend someone do this, because I think it would solve a lot of the problems. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merger in progress. I am about to make this article (as well as positive right) into a redirect. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no rights you can't defend
If others choose to defend you so be it, but you have no right to their assistance. They may be morally obligated to assist you, or they may not. If you (or others) cannot force or persuade them to assist you however, you clearly have no right to their aid. The sort of collectivist entitlement POV evidenced by The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes needs to be balanced. Sam Spade 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Minhea can't seem to make the distinction between a need to protect liberty (in order to enjoy liberty) and "a positive right" to have liberty protected by others. Hopefully it will sink in soon. RJII 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Sam below. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagine this: You witness a criminal attempting to break into your car. You call the police on your cell phone, but they don't come. Altho you shout to strangers for assistance, they walk away. Finially you take out your handgun, grab the man by the back of his pants and pull him out of your car at gun point. After a stern lecture, you send him on his way, get into your car, and drive home. Negative right defended, without recourse to either the collective or the state (you can't trust them anyhow! ;) Sam Spade 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is, you don't need any "rights" in order to defend yourself. You can defend your house or your car regardless whether you have any negative right to do so. If there are no rights at all, you can still defend yourself. And if negative rights simply mean that you can defend yourself, then negative rights are equal to no rights at all. That is my point. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But your point is wrong, look up right. It means something you can justly do. I can wantonly murder toddlers at my local primary school, but its not right! Some people don't even think defending myself is right, altho I clearly disagree. Thats what rights are all about, things that can be done justly. Obviously diverse people hardly ever agree on what is Just and right, and that is why terms like "positive right" and "negative right" were invented, to discuss the different types of rights, and our opinions of them. Sam Spade 18:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But if there is no government or some other authority to punish you for doing wrong, there is no difference between things you can justly do and things you can't justly do. The existence of justice - and therefore the existence of rights - requires some ultimate judge of right and wrong with the power to enforce its decisions. See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

God. Superego. Conscience. Culture. We have plenty of ways to determine what is right without a state to punish us. Sam Spade 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but none of those things are universal. My God, superego, conscience and culture could be different from yours. And yours could be different from those of a third person, and so on. In order for justice and rights to exist, they must have universal (or near-universal) recognition within a certain society. Thus, again, there must be some ultimate judge of right and wrong with the power to enforce its decisions. You may think that wantonly murdering toddlers at your local primary school is wrong, but if most other people think otherwise and there is no state to punish them, there's not much you can do about it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not true that "the existence of rights - requires some ultimate judge of right and wrong with the power to enforce its decisions." You don't understand what it means to have a moral right. If an individual has a moral right to live, then if you kill him, you have violated his right regardless of whether you are punished for it and even if it's legal for you to kill him. RJII 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "In order for justice and rights to exist, they must have universal (or near-universal) recognition within a certain society."

This is a moral relativist presumption, not widely held.

We (and the God within us) are the "ultimate judge of right and wrong with the power to enforce its decisions", not the state. If someone tried to commit terrorism around me, I'd take action. Citizens behaving righteously is the only real Justice these days, we certainly can't expect something like that from our courts. The Criminal Justice system may be criminal, but it rarely if ever is Just. Sam Spade 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is a moral relativist presumption, not widely held."
 * Ah, that's why I think it makes so much sense, and haven't been able to figure out how everyone was missing Mihnea's point. "We (and the God within us) are the ultimate judge of right and wrong, etc."  So, the God within Bedouins, for example, thinks infanticide is ok, for example.  The God within Cato the Younger found suicide to be not only acceptable, but noble, in the circumstances.  Not everyone assumes that there exists a universal morality.  Not everyone assumes that moral or ethical rights have an a priori existence, or that essence precedes existence in the first place.  If existence precedes essence, then rights do not exist until some kind of societal structure is set up to guarantee them.  Some people, when they talk about rights, are talking about de facto rights, because any other kind is like a ghost or a fairy.  You can say something exists, but until it's given some concrete existence in the world, by means of enforcement in this case, you're just blowing smoke rings.  (According to some people, that is)
 * Remember Justice Taney, saying in the days leading up to the US Civil War that "the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect," and how we learn that this statement is often taken to be racist, when in fact, Taney was describing the lack of de facto legal rights enjoyed by blacks? Well, if you've watched Ken Burns documentary as many times as I have, you remember it.  My point is that it's not just wacko existentialists and fringe moral relativists who use the word "right" to refer to the concretely actualized kind, and not the theoretical potential kind.  Is that what this talk page has been going in circles about?
 * Implying that essence precedes existence is POV. Implying that existence precedes essence is also POV.  What to do? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the concept of moral rights exists so it needed to be explained that Minhea was talking about legal rights. I think I took care of it with some edits. But, yes, that was the source of confusion. RJII 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very clariying. For me, existance is due to essence... no God, no reality. Therefore the idea of people being without potential righteousness (and thus rights capable of being defended) is impossible to me, not something I concieve of. Similarly, the Bedouin has the same God as Cato and I. Perhaps he tells us different things, or we hear him differently, but its all the same God. Nothing else is possible for a monist.

In answer to "what to do", its simple. Cite the various POV's in a neutral manner, and allow the reader to make up his own mind. Sam Spade 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, GTBacchus. We should definitely discuss existence and essence in this article - or rather, in the combined Negative and positive rights article that I intend to create later today. My own view is simple: If the real-world effects of the existence of X are not any different from the real-world effects of the non-existence of X, then X does not exist. In other words, if it doesn't make any practical difference whether X exists or not, then we can assume X does not exist. "Moral rights" fall under this category. If everyone else thinks you should be killed, does it make any difference whether or not you have a moral right to live? No - you'll still be killed regardless. Your moral right to live doesn't change anything in practice. Thus it is a phantom, a ghost, a non-entity. But that, of course, is a POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't God be this "ghost", the universal source of absolute rights. Sam Spade 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe in God, but I do not believe God grants any rights. And the scriptures of all major religions agree with me: rights are not featured in any of them. Also, if God "grants" something that he does not enforce, then he doesn't really grant it at all. God-given rights can only exist to the extent that God enforces them. But God does not enforce any rights. Ergo, God-given rights do not exist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Righteousness and miracles enforce rights. Sam Spade 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one theory. I believe in a much more morally "hands-off" God.  This is really getting beside the point though.  Certainly you realize that your religious beliefs constitute a non-universally held POV? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The real issue is how to word Negative and positive rights in a neutral manner. I think it needs another cite or 2, and Mihnea seems to agree ;) Why don't we just redirect to positive liberty and negative liberty, their well cited enough... Sam Spade 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * They may be well cited, but they talk about (slightly) different things... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, when you said this, I went to look up some cites, but the only decent ones I could find led back to positive and negative liberties, not rights. Sam Spade 23:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)