Negative human rights as a concept predate even Enlightenment philosophy. However, in the libertarian view, their beauty lies not in their age but in their logical sturdiness. The libertarian first principle is sometimes expressed as: “He who initiates force is always wrong,” or alternatively: “He who initiates force or fraud is always wrong.” From this, it cogently follows that negative rights exist: “I have a right to not be assaulted,” “I have a right to not be killed,” “I have a right to not have my belongings stolen from me,” and so on. If a philosophy is predicated on non-violence and accepts as valid the idea of private property, negative rights are conceptually fitting in that framework.

Contrast the concept of negative rights with positive rights. Positive rights are “rights” to a good or service. They ironically cannot exist without either dismissing the idea of negative rights entirely, or caveating the philosophy so that negative rights apply to either personage or property, but not to both. In this way, positive rights are incompatible with libertarianism but can be construed to be real within a utilitarian framework. It is on the mountain of utilitarian hypocrisy that positive rights have persisted in theory for eons and in name since at least the 1970s. The idea that people can have a right to be provided with products or services is a fallacy.

If you dismiss the idea of private ownership, positive rights might be more palatable in a communal property scenario. Reality harkens us back however, and even communal property cannot rectify the logical fallacy that is a positive right. If a society outgrows a product or exhausts the ability to provide a service, then those left empty-handed have essentially been denied their rights. Can something truly be a right if possession or consumption of the thing is limited by scarcity or wear? One strength of negative rights can be tested herein as they never require rationing.

Positive rights can be more effectively defended with a utilitarian worldview. While it provides a more defensible case for positive rights, I roundly reject the worldview, and I hope more people than not would agree with me. To accept the utilitarian worldview it must be tacitly implied that all persons are lesser than the whole society. In subordinating people to the whole, they are commoditized and violations of their negative rights are justified in order to manipulate society. The theft of wealth from a rich person (in the utilitarian’s worldview) is necessitated by the impoverished person’s need for some service or product. It follows that the utilitarian worldview demands a government, because there is no way to enforce positive rights without a monopoly on force. Note that negative rights do not suffer from the same dilemma: the right to defend yourself need not be “enforced” by a third party.

While I can respect the logical consistency of someone who wholly subscribes to the utilitarian worldview, I can’t accept it as rational. By extension, positive rights - though justified by the utilitarian worldview - are still irrational, and are still not rights. If a “right” requires third party enforcement or the generosity of an external party in order to guarantee its existence, then it isn’t a right, it is a privilege.

For those doing any background checking, you will find a remarkably similar post at libertarianassembly on WordPress. That is because that is my former blog, a project which never really took off (as of this writing), and I am happy to prove that said blog is mine to any who care.