No, absolutely not. There are "negative rights" and "positive rights".
Actually, there are neither, but even assuming that there
are rights, the simple fact of the matter is that all so-called "negative rights" can easily be re-framed as positive rights and all "positive rights" can easily be re-framed as negative rights. Whether to classify a particular right as positive or negative is a
purely arbitrary decision, as all claims to "rights" require that other people behave in some way regardless of whether they want to.
Negative rights require you to do nothing more than leave me alone. E.g. the negative right to life means you may not kill me.
Except that this isn't quite right, is it? After all, most libertarians I've talked to seem to recognize the right to self-defense - thus, the negative right to life does
not mean that you may not kill me; instead, it only limits the precise situations under which you
may. Which begs the question of under what circumstances it is okay to kill you and under which it is not. To say that "self-defense" is justified but "aggression" or "coercion" are not merely begs the question of how these terms are to be defined. It also begs the question of how much aggression/coercion justifies how much defensive force. Presumably, you would see it as a legitimate to shoot someone who was shooting at you. But what if they were only planning to punch you and take your wallet? Is shooting to kill (or in reckless disregard of the possibility that you might kill) in this situation acceptable? If not, why not? If so, then is there any use of force/aggression/coercion that CANNOT be legitimately rebuffed with lethal force? If so, then what type(s) and why?
The negative right to property means you may not steal from me.
That's all very well and good when everybody agrees about who owns what and that the legitimacy of all property claims are sound, but suppose there's a dispute? In this situation, how should it be decided who owns what? Furthermore, what about situations where it's agreed upon that someone
does own something, but people don't think they
ought to? Is stealing okay in this instance?
From a 1969 issue of
Libertarian Forum, edited by Murray Rothbard himself:
"Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a
virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.
Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called “taxation” and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible.
Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty. […] Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State."
“Libertarianism” achieved! By extortion, robbery and murder. (Again, this is simply communism.)
Positive rights, aka entitlements, require you to do something for me. A positive right to health care means you must pay for my health care. A positive right to education means you must pay for my schooling.
A positive right to life means you must refrain from killing me. A positive right to property means you must abstain from stealing it.
A negative right to health care means you may not deny me health care. A negative right to education means you may not deny me schooling.
The imaginary distinction that you're attempting to draw between positive and negative rights exists only in your mind - it has no basis in reality. Claims to "rights" are simply demands that other people behave in a certain way whether they want to or not. Whether to define this behavior as "active" or "passive" (and hence the relevant right as "positive" or "negative") is an entirely arbitrary decision.
Privacy, if it is a right, would be a negative right - forbidding the government from interfering in people's peaceful, private affairs.
Says you. The Supreme Court says the right to privacy protects acts that many do not believe to be peaceful and that should not be thought of as private affairs. To summarize:
1) "Rights" are not real. They are fictional/legal constructs created at the arbitrary whim of those who hold power. You only have what "rights" are given to you by people with the most/biggest guns.
2) Whether to classify a particular right as positive or negative is an arbitrary rather than objective process. Every so-called positive right can be re-framed as a negative right, and vice versa.
That's the kind of right that the Founding Fathers, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, libertarians, many conservatives, and most people on this forum subscribe to. Positive rights are what liberals and socialists are advocating.
Ah, yes, the good old
Founding Fathers,
infamous defenders of privacy!
"Persons were hauled before local committees for criticizing the Continental Congress, belittling the Massachusetts Army, criticizing Presbyterian prominence in the Revolution, and a host of other 'errors of opinion.' The new extralegal Massachusetts General Court urged Harvard College to dismiss all faculty members having Tory views. Individual Tories were not only boycotted and forced to recant their heresies; stronger methods of punishment were adopted as soon as the rebel committees became the effective authorities in their areas. As early as May 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress recommended to local selectmen and committees that they confiscate the arms of all unfriendly to the rebel cause and forbid anyone to leave the province without special permission of the local committee or the Congress.
The following month, the provincial congress directed the town committees and selectmen to confiscate and take charge of the property of all Tories who had fled behind the British lines at Boston or elsewhere. In New Hampshire, the provincial congress, as the supreme judicial body of the province, sentenced Tory Col. John Fenton to indefinite imprisonment as 'an enemy to the liberties of America.' In September, the New York Provincial Congress created a hierarchy of penalties for Tories, including fines, disarming, prison, and banishment. And in November, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a law decreeing death and forfeit of property to anyone assisting the British army with information or supplies.
One of the critical litmus tests used by the local committees to smoke out Tories was a public oath of loyalty to a defense association succeeding the old Continental Association. As historian Alexander C. Flick concluded, the association became the first decisive test of the politics of individuals…. It stamped the individual as a Whig or Tory in the eyes of his neighbors, and treatment was meted out to him accordingly…. Hesitation [to sign] involved suspicion; refusal, guilt. The Loyalist who was true to his convictions, creed, and king was detested, reviled and if prominent, ruined in business, tarred and feathered, mobbed, ostracized, or imprisoned; and all this at the will of a committee, self-constituted and responsible to no one.
Thus, a Revolution and revolutionaries dedicated to the cause of liberty moved to suppress crucial liberties of their opposition—an ironic but not unsurprising illustration of the inherent contradiction between Liberty and Power, a conflict that can all too readily come into play even when Power is employed on behalf of Liberty.
Hesitant to take any steps that might lead irrevocably to independence, the Continental Congress refused to do anything about hunting and combatting [sic] Tories, leaving the task to the separate towns and provinces—this despite the requests from Massachusetts and Maryland for a general congressional test oath for all the colonies. In October 1775, however, Congress learned that Dr. Benjamin Church, one of the top revolutionary leaders of Massachusetts and chief surgeon of the Continental Army, was a traitor in the pay of the British. This grave shock led Congress to urge the various local committees to crack down on everyone who might 'endanger the safety of the colony or liberties of America.'
The committees redoubled their efforts in rounding up suspects, imposing test oaths and punishing recalcitrants with disfranchisement or prison. The Continental Army was also authorized to aid in suppressing Tories. Even as conservative a man as George Washington wondered why the Tories, 'abominable pests of society… who are preying upon the vitals of their country [should] be suffered to stalk at large, whilst we know that they will do us every mischief in their power.'"
And do be sure to give
this a read when you get the chance. Key quote:
"Some would just try to split the difference, and convince you that it wasn't black and white - that the 'King's friends' had a point, too. Your modern academic historian (as opposed to his more numerous colleague, the modern academic antihistorian) is terribly good at this trick of dousing inconvenient truths in a freezing, antiseptic bucket of professional neutrality.
This is pretty much why you can't just walk into your friendly local bookstore and buy a red pill. It was black and white. It was just black and white in the
other direction."
I have no problem with that. My complaint is that he attacks the right to privacy.
Ah, yes, Rand Paul,
famous opponent of the right to privacy:
“No one should be allowed to invade your privacy. That’s why I’m announcing today that when I return to Washington, I will push for a select committee styled after the Church Committee that investigated the abuses of power of the intelligence committee in the 70s. It should be bipartisan. It should be independent, and wide reaching. It should have full power to investigate and reform those who spy on us in the name of protecting us.”
WHAT A FASCIST!!!
Well, there's the argument that you made ("slaughtering infants is wrong. He doesn't think the Constitution protects anybody's right to kill babies..."). There's the argument that the baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to privacy. There's the argument that privacy is not the central issue in abortion. There's the argument that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting the baby. (I generally don't like "compelling interest" justifications, but it's less offensive than arguing against privacy.)
None of these arguments are at all compelling if the reasoning of the Supreme Court is upheld. More importantly, so long as the right of the Supreme Court to discover and enforce unenumerated rights is upheld, the precise reason or right used to mandate that abortion be legal is irrelevant - if the argument from the right to privacy is rejected, another can be composed. The only way to prevent this process from taking place is by denying the Supreme Court the right to discover or enforce unenumerated rights at all. That means even the ones you and I like, such as the right to privacy. For if a right to privacy can be read into the Constitution, then I assure you that a right to "free" health care can be read into it as well.
And that is why you should deny the existence of a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy beyond those particular protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.
Menciusmoldbug, you made some false assumptions in your response to me. You assumed I believed in positive rights, and that I was arguing in favor of abortions.
With respect,
you are now making some false assumptions in your response to
me. You assume that I think the distinction between positive and negative rights is meaningful (I don't). You also assume that I assumed that you were arguing in favor of abortions. I made no such assumption - in fact, I don't particularly care whether you were arguing in favor of abortions or not (personally, I'm pro-choice). All I care about is that the argument you presented was poor. I'm not a fan of poor arguments, regardless of whether they reach a conclusion I agree with or not.
Please re-read my original post. If you think there's some sinister meaning between the lines (emanating, perhaps, from the penumbras of my post
) please ask me to clarify before hurling accusations.
I detected nothing sinister, only stupid, and see no need for clarification, only education. =)
hope this helps
