Negative and positive rights

According to the definition of Karel Vasak and Joseph Raz[1] negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either inaction (negative rights) or action (positive rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights.[2] The Raz-Vašák definition of negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either omission (negative rights) or action (positive rights). This definition makes both types of rights the same, because the omission of X i.e. the set of all action that does not involve doing X, is also an action. Grammatically inaction, namely omitting all action, makes no sense, because anyone can create a sentence having someone act.

According to the Rothbard-Berlin definition, the right of person A to obligate (enforce an obligation on) person B to refrain from (causal) physical interference with, in particular a purely interfering negligence tort against, some object or thing is called a negative right.[3][4] So a negative right is a claim right. If a claim right is not a negative right, it is called a positive right.[5] To every claim right of person A to obligate person B corresponds the obligation on B, so the obligation corresponding to a negative right is called a 'negative obligation'[6] and an obligation corresponding to positive right a 'positive obligation'.[7] Examples of negative rights are natural right to self-ownership and property like land and territorial sovereignty of the state. An examples of a positive right is the right of the government to enforce the law on all inhabitants or a sale contract to receive a product. Defamation, free-market competition or refusal to offer a delivery service are not forms of damage that are tortuously necessarily caused by an act of pure interference. Bans on these actions are positive obligations and the right to inviolability of these actions are positive rights.

Negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, protection against being defrauded, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and the right not to be enslaved by another.

Positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vašák, may include other civil and political rights such as the right to counsel and police protection of person and property. Additionally, they include economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

Some philosophers (see criticisms) disagree that the negative–positive rights distinction is useful or valid.

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group such as a government, usually occurring in the form of abuse or coercion. Negative rights exist unless someone acts to negate them. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties, while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties.[citation needed]

The belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is generally maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by a contract. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.

  1. ^ Maria-Artemis Kolliniati - Human Rights and Positive Obligations to Healthcare
  2. ^ Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay, if and only if Clay is prohibited to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay, if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. Note that 'acting upon someone' is a purely grammatical construct without empirical meaning. For example, Adrian has a negative right to be liked with respect to Clay, when Clay is required not to dislike Adrian; while Adrian has a positive right to be liked with respect to Clay, then Clay is required to like Adrian. In both cases it is assumed that Adrian is allowed to somehow enforce or except the right on Adrian to create a legal relationship. The fact that the word 'dislike' can be replaced by 'hate' which could be interpreted to be the same or not the same has 'dislike', has nothing to do with this grammatical concept.
  3. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Isaiah Berlin on Negative Freedom". The Ethics of Liberty. p. 248. ISBN 0391023713. A negative right is called the right to negative liberty, citation: "Superficially, Berlin's concept of negative liberty seems similar to the thesis of the present volume: that liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property.. Berlin's fundamental flaw was his failure to define negative liberty as the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined."
  4. ^ Rand, Ayn (1988). The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z. p. 40. ISBN 9780452010512. Citations p246: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights..", p40: "an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference"
  5. ^ Block, Walter (1986). The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Ethical and Economic Perspective]. SSRN 1896495. Citation: "In classical philosophy, negative rights or negative liberty consist solely of the right not to have physical force, or the threat thereof, initiated against oneself. Each person, then, has the right not to be murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted, battered, etc. The doctrine of positive "rights," in contrast, typically holds that people have the right to food, clothing, shelter, and, depending on which variant is under discussion, to a reasonable lifestyle, to non-discriminatory behaviour, to meaningful relationships, to psychological well-being, to employment, to a decent wage, etc."
  6. ^ Homowy, Ronald (2008). "Individual Rights". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 246. Citation:"each person is born to a negative obligation to leave others in the peaceful enjoyment of their persons and their own property.. property rights are negative rights. In the absence of special complications, one’s property rights only impose on others the duty not to trespass and to leave one free to do as one sees fit with oneself and one’s own property"
  7. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Children and Rights". The Ethics of Liberty. p. 139. ISBN 0391023713. Citation:"On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced."