On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 06:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
...
Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own
life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.

I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life.

You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no
obligation to do so.


For example, we're on the sidewalk talking, I glance up, and I see
a big concrete pot falling off a balcony over us. Should I just step
back? Is that what you demand I do, so that I don't force positive
rights on you?

You wouldn't be "forcing positive rights" on me in that circumstance;
you simply would be doing me a good deed.