Negative And Positive Rights
Throughout societies in history and presently, we can see the employment of two primary
forms of rights: positive and negative. The bulk of the following attempts to highlight the
differences between the two. The proponents of each will also be discussed. Negative rights
are simply “freedom from” certain things. For example, freedom from false imprisonment,
from illegal search and seizure, freedom of speech, are all forms of negative rights. This
concept is totally Lockean in nature. They are called “negative rights” because government
ensures them by not doing things or restricting the actions of others. Negative rights can also
be viewed as placing a protective wall around us. Positive rights are somewhat different.
Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean
that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. If we were to
make this a negative right to healthcare, this would mean no one may prevent me from
getting medical attention, however, neither the State nor any person other than myself is
responsible for acquiring it. I believe both Locke and Mill would defend negative rights. Locke
is a proponent simply because he feels that some rights must be suspended in order for
government to protect others. It can be seen that Mill supports negative rights through the
“bridge walker” example. We can only stop the man crossing the bridge to ensure he is
aware of the condition of the bridge; otherwise we may not interfere with anyone. Another
good example for Mill is the corn dealer situation. True, the crowd may say what it wants so
long as it does not cause harm. I believe that this restriction, NOT CAUSE HARM, is what
makes this a negative right. Furthermore, if this restriction were not in place, and harm was
done to the corn dealer (death), then the dealer’s rights are violated. This is a good example
of why some rights must be given up in order to protect others. With regards to the positive
rights, I believe Marx is the best example while simultaneously being the worst. Marx
contends that humans must be free from both external and internal constraints, in order to
achieve liberation and self-fulfillment. However, I think this causes some confusion. I believe
we could find certain situations where both positive and negative rights would apply. For
instance, if people are to achieve liberation and self-fulfillment, then I assume the people
must be fed. This would be an example of a positive right; all persons have the right to eat.
However, at the same time, a manager of a farm is restricted from exploiting his workers
because that would inhibit their abilities to achieve their liberation and fulfillment. This issue
of Marx brings us to what conception I find most convincing. The fact of the matter is I do
not find either concept of rights to be superior. Moreover, I do not believe one can exist
independently of the other. For instance, as the Marx examples indicated, it seems that all
positive rights must have a negative right attached to them as if some sort of appendage.
However, does this mean that preclusion of positive rights occurs when we employ positive
rights? It seems to me that insofar as our studies to date, that this does occur. Suppose the
following. I have some disorder. I need to see a doctor. In our society I have a positive right
to healthcare, therefore, the doctor is subsidized by the State and must give me the attention
I need. Now, a positive right means I have access to a good or service, in this case
healthcare. However, this right to healthcare necessarily requires that the doctor’s rights be
restricted. Therefore, negative rights appear to be the prevailing form of rights. It seems one
may have negative rights without having positive rights but may not have positive rights
without negative rights.
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/e4/vak199.shtml