Negative vs. Positive Rights

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I cannot even fathom an argument for positive rights.[/quote]

You have kids?

Think of one of their emotional melt downs. Now imagine it being a college age kid with a Che shirt on. [/quote]

HAH. That is actually a far better argument that I expected here. My daughter is only 6 months old though so I’ll let you know in about 17 years. And as an aside, I believe the parent-child relationship is unique and entirely worthy of special rights.[/quote]

When does a parent no longer own a child, and what are the ramifications of your answer for the abortion argument?[/quote]

Never owns.[/quote]

That was what I figured your response would be, and in my estimation it is the correct answer. So I wonder then whether the “special rights” you referred to can be enumerated, and for how long they apply.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Couldn’t this be individual vs collective rights?

Individual: life, liberty, property

Collective: The right to others life, liberty and property.[/quote]

I’d argue that there are some differences.

Negative versus positive liberties, which are at the core of how the American Constitution was framed, aren’t quite the same as individual versus collective rights. Positive liberty, as I understand it, refers more to a belief that government should facilitate conditions that lead to greater individual self-sufficiency or self-fulfillment (usually certain economic or social privileges) versus negative liberty, which means being free from restraint or coercion in one’s own thought or actions.

I see individual versus collective rights more as trying to promote a balance between protecting individual liberty versus allowing government greater freedom to restrict that liberty in favor of promoting the interest of the masses. They’re not entirely mutually exclusive, but to me the two concepts also have inherent differences. I guess it all depends on what one means my “individual” versus “collective” rights - the terms are somewhat amorphous, whereas negative versus positive liberties have more of a philosophical framework that political scientists can at least agree on.

The observations about Positive Rights here need to be expanded. Many who are adamantly anti-Positive Rights are mainly thinking about programs that provide some kind of entitlement or benefit. Fair enough. But the same folks tend to remark about the importance of being able to conduct business without interference. And in doing so, the vast majority enjoy a Positive Right that helps them: the positive grant of authority to form a corporation.

The ability to form a legally recognized fictional entity like a corporation is as much a Positive Right as being able to draw funds from a social insurance program. You have no inherent right to form such an entity and enjoy limited liability, etc. - it is a government created and sponsored privilege.

So, are the opponents of Positive Rights also the sworn enemy of the “right” to form a corporation to do business?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It seems that much political debate centers around what type of rights should be protected. There are two types of rights: negative and positive.

Most supporters of “big government”(they often don’t believe they are, and who am I to say otherwise?) believe that people have positive rights. Most supporters of “small government”(if positive rights exist, then supporters of small government-libertarians, “tea party” types, Constitutionalists, etc.-may actually be supporters of tyranny) like the concept of negative rights.

Positive rights require the action of others. Negative rights require that others not act against you.

A negative right to life requires that others not kill you. A positive right to life requires that one needing a lung transplant to live be given a lung transplant, regardless of his ability to pay for it, the willingness of another to provide him with it, etc.

Should a restaurant be forced to serve, say, people with dark skin? Does the owner of a business have a right to decide how to run his business, or does a member of a protected class have a right to the service of others?

Negative rights do not violate the negative rights of others; however, positive rights can conflict.

What type of rights do we have? What are they?[/quote]

How can anything be considered a right that must violate that same right of anyone else? If this is the case then rights must be considered negative because I cannot deny you what I myself ask for.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The ability to form a legally recognized fictional entity like a corporation is as much a Positive Right as being able to draw funds from a social insurance program. You have no inherent right to form such an entity and enjoy limited liability, etc. - it is a government created and sponsored privilege.

So, are the opponents of Positive Rights also the sworn enemy of the “right” to form a corporation to do business? [/quote]

This is the main reason why government cannot be trusted to regulate industry.

Mercantilism is not a new idea and as long as government can arbitrarily define what is legal they will just invent new euphemisms to justify their depredations.

edited

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The ability to form a legally recognized fictional entity like a corporation is as much a Positive Right as being able to draw funds from a social insurance program. You have no inherent right to form such an entity and enjoy limited liability, etc. - it is a government created and sponsored privilege.

So, are the opponents of Positive Rights also the sworn enemy of the “right” to form a corporation to do business? [/quote]

This is the main reason why government cannot be trusted to regulate industry.

Mercantilism is not a new idea and as long as government can arbitrarily define what is legal they will just invent new euphemisms to justify their depredations.

edited[/quote]

So, you’re against laws that create and recognize artificial entities for individuals to conduct business through?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The ability to form a legally recognized fictional entity like a corporation is as much a Positive Right as being able to draw funds from a social insurance program. You have no inherent right to form such an entity and enjoy limited liability, etc. - it is a government created and sponsored privilege.

So, are the opponents of Positive Rights also the sworn enemy of the “right” to form a corporation to do business? [/quote]

This is the main reason why government cannot be trusted to regulate industry.

Mercantilism is not a new idea and as long as government can arbitrarily define what is legal they will just invent new euphemisms to justify their depredations.

edited[/quote]

So, you’re against laws that create and recognize artificial entities for individuals to conduct business through?
[/quote]

Yes, and I am specifically against protectionism for such entities. This is the only reason they are “legally” recognized in the first place.

A legal definition of a corporation has no meaning outside of the privileges it bestows upon the entity. These privileges are granted at the expense of those not legally protected and to the detriment of economic competition.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
These privileges are granted at the expense of those not legally protected and to the detriment of economic competition.[/quote]

Ummm… This is where you fall off the tracks and become a flaming disaster.

In no way is one set of people’s ability to incorporate “at the expense” of another. It doesn’t harm one in order to allow another. And if you think that limited liability is a detriment to competition… Well, I’m not sure I’m going to sit an argue an alternate reality, because that isn’t true.

All a corp does is allow someone to take the risks involved in starting, running and potentially losing a business, and not have to lay in bed at night worrying he’ll lose his house if one of his major customers defaults, as long as he plays it by the books.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It seems that much political debate centers around what type of rights should be protected. There are two types of rights: negative and positive.

Most supporters of “big government”(they often don’t believe they are, and who am I to say otherwise?) believe that people have positive rights. Most supporters of “small government”(if positive rights exist, then supporters of small government-libertarians, “tea party” types, Constitutionalists, etc.-may actually be supporters of tyranny) like the concept of negative rights.

Positive rights require the action of others. Negative rights require that others not act against you.

A negative right to life requires that others not kill you. A positive right to life requires that one needing a lung transplant to live be given a lung transplant, regardless of his ability to pay for it, the willingness of another to provide him with it, etc.

Should a restaurant be forced to serve, say, people with dark skin? Does the owner of a business have a right to decide how to run his business, or does a member of a protected class have a right to the service of others?

Negative rights do not violate the negative rights of others; however, positive rights can conflict.

What type of rights do we have? What are they?[/quote]

We have negative rights and positive obligations. Positive obligations do not imply coercion, only that there are actions that may have negative consequences at some point in time if we do not choose to take them.

They go hand in hand. One must respect the idea of positive obligations, since a disrespect of it is essentially what fuels the erroneous idea that there are positive rights. Positive rights simply amount to slavery, or the idea that your actions are only yours when I don’t need them first.

The whole thing boils down to this: the doctrine of negative rights does not in any way, shape, or form imply that inaction alone will suffice to protect these rights. Action is required in order to protect our right to inaction against us on the part of others.

These actions must necessarily include self-defense and whatnot. But they also must include actions that do not feed the argument that we should be forced to do otherwise benevolent deeds. Feed the hungry of your own volition so that there is no reason for people to begin arguing that we should be forced to do so. You cannot force someone to fix a problem that they are already fixing voluntarily.

edit: after all, coercion always begins under the guise of offering protection.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
These privileges are granted at the expense of those not legally protected and to the detriment of economic competition.[/quote]

Ummm… This is where you fall off the tracks and become a flaming disaster.

In no way is one set of people’s ability to incorporate “at the expense” of another. It doesn’t harm one in order to allow another. And if you think that limited liability is a detriment to competition… Well, I’m not sure I’m going to sit an argue an alternate reality, because that isn’t true.

All a corp does is allow someone to take the risks involved in starting, running and potentially losing a business, and not have to lay in bed at night worrying he’ll lose his house if one of his major customers defaults, as long as he plays it by the books. [/quote]

Factionalism is an essential, albeit somewhat ugly, aspect of liberty. The corporate world is simply one of many arenas in which this principle reveals itself.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
It seems that much political debate centers around what type of rights should be protected. There are two types of rights: negative and positive.

Most supporters of “big government”(they often don’t believe they are, and who am I to say otherwise?) believe that people have positive rights. Most supporters of “small government”(if positive rights exist, then supporters of small government-libertarians, “tea party” types, Constitutionalists, etc.-may actually be supporters of tyranny) like the concept of negative rights.

Positive rights require the action of others. Negative rights require that others not act against you.

A negative right to life requires that others not kill you. A positive right to life requires that one needing a lung transplant to live be given a lung transplant, regardless of his ability to pay for it, the willingness of another to provide him with it, etc.

Should a restaurant be forced to serve, say, people with dark skin? Does the owner of a business have a right to decide how to run his business, or does a member of a protected class have a right to the service of others?

Negative rights do not violate the negative rights of others; however, positive rights can conflict.

What type of rights do we have? What are they?[/quote]

Our Constitution is a document of negative laws applicable to government actions. Even the Bill of Rights list what rights we do have that the government cannot interfere with them.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
These privileges are granted at the expense of those not legally protected and to the detriment of economic competition.[/quote]

Ummm… This is where you fall off the tracks and become a flaming disaster.

In no way is one set of people’s ability to incorporate “at the expense” of another. It doesn’t harm one in order to allow another. And if you think that limited liability is a detriment to competition… Well, I’m not sure I’m going to sit an argue an alternate reality, because that isn’t true.

All a corp does is allow someone to take the risks involved in starting, running and potentially losing a business, and not have to lay in bed at night worrying he’ll lose his house if one of his major customers defaults, as long as he plays it by the books. [/quote]

All a corporation does is allow people to not be responsible with other people’s money and then get bailed out by taxpayers when they become “too big to fail”.

The LLC in and of itself is just a way for governments to extort money from people who want to start their own business. It is totally unnecessary in a free society.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
These privileges are granted at the expense of those not legally protected and to the detriment of economic competition.[/quote]

Ummm… This is where you fall off the tracks and become a flaming disaster.

In no way is one set of people’s ability to incorporate “at the expense” of another. It doesn’t harm one in order to allow another. And if you think that limited liability is a detriment to competition… Well, I’m not sure I’m going to sit an argue an alternate reality, because that isn’t true.

All a corp does is allow someone to take the risks involved in starting, running and potentially losing a business, and not have to lay in bed at night worrying he’ll lose his house if one of his major customers defaults, as long as he plays it by the books. [/quote]

All a corporation does is allow people to not be responsible with other people’s money
[/quote]

Absolutely ridiculous.

The vast majority of C Corps are not “too big to fail” and will never be bailed out. I agree the mindset is a problem, but it is hardly a systematic problem.

[quote]
The LLC in and of itself is just a way for governments to extort money from people who want to start their own business. [/quote]

Last time I checked the government doesn’t force a business to be an LLC. The business makes that decision, get this, because there are benefits to being an LLC including tax benefits.

[quote]
It is totally unnecessary in a free society.[/quote]

So are Oreo cookies, free weights, Keeping up with the Kardashians, and the NFL, point being, so what…

Free weights are infinitely more necessary in a free society than Oreo cookies.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The LLC in and of itself is just a way for governments to extort money from people who want to start their own business. [/quote]

Last time I checked the government doesn’t force a business to be an LLC. The business makes that decision, get this, because there are benefits to being an LLC including tax benefits.
[/quote]

Usmc, if I had to guess, I would guess that LIFTICVSMAXIMVS is referring to the fact that a business must spend money to become an LLC and get those tax benefits. Being an LLC is not desirable for any reason other than government interference. In other words, in a hypothetical free society, there would be no benefit to being recognized as an LLC.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Free weights are infinitely more necessary in a free society than Oreo cookies.[/quote]

I would say they are infinitely more useful or desirable in a free society than Oreo cookies. They are certainly not a necessity though.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The LLC in and of itself is just a way for governments to extort money from people who want to start their own business. [/quote]

Last time I checked the government doesn’t force a business to be an LLC. The business makes that decision, get this, because there are benefits to being an LLC including tax benefits.
[/quote]

Usmc, if I had to guess, I would guess that LIFTICVSMAXIMVS is referring to the fact that a business must spend money to become an LLC and get those tax benefits. Being an LLC is not desirable for any reason other than government interference. In other words, in a hypothetical free society, there would be no benefit to being recognized as an LLC. [/quote]

My response got sucked into the black hole of the internet apparently. Short version, all business organizations cost money, all have various benefits (employees should be grateful for limited liability if they work for an LLC), and following this logic no business organization would have any benefit in this, “hypothetical free society.”

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Usmc, if I had to guess, I would guess that LIFTICVSMAXIMVS is referring to the fact that a business must spend money to become an LLC and get those tax benefits. Being an LLC is not desirable for any reason other than government interference. In other words, in a hypothetical free society, there would be no benefit to being recognized as an LLC. [/quote]

An LLC doesn’t protect me from the gov’t, it protects me from my creditors. In a free society, the ability for a business to fail and for it’s principals to not lose their personal assets is an enormous benefit.

As a pass-through entity the tax benefits are minimal, if they exist at all.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Usmc, if I had to guess, I would guess that LIFTICVSMAXIMVS is referring to the fact that a business must spend money to become an LLC and get those tax benefits. Being an LLC is not desirable for any reason other than government interference. In other words, in a hypothetical free society, there would be no benefit to being recognized as an LLC. [/quote]

An LLC doesn’t protect me from the gov’t, it protects me from my creditors. In a free society, the ability for a business to fail and for it’s principals to not lose their personal assets is an enormous benefit.

As a pass-through entity the tax benefits are minimal, if they exist at all.
[/quote]

This benefit only exists in countries that are still struggling to modernize and achieve developed-nation status. In many cases, however, the risk is unnecessary since the overall reward, economic modernization, has already been reached.

In a developed, advanced economy like ours, the LLC largely serves to allow risky behavior that the LLC and its principals will benefit from when things go well, while shoving the shit onto the taxpayer when things go wrong. The bottom line is that they also encourage largely consequence-free risks that are not always warranted.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

This benefit only exists in countries that are still struggling to modernize and achieve developed-nation status. In many cases, however, the risk is unnecessary since the overall reward, economic modernization, has already been reached.

In a developed, advanced economy like ours, the LLC largely serves to allow risky behavior that the LLC and its principals will benefit from when things go well, while shoving the shit onto the taxpayer when things go wrong. The bottom line is that they also encourage largely consequence-free risks that are not always warranted.[/quote]

I’ve read this 3 different times, and I have to admit I have no idea what you’re talking about.

The benefit of a limited liability corporation is very real, especially in a modern, developed nation such as the US. Otherwise, people wouldn’t be forming them literally every day.

There is nothing inherent to an LLC that would require the taxpayer to absorb any losses whatsoever should the LLC declare bankruptcy.

Lastly, there’s nothing about the decision making that is consequence free. The members of a bankrupt LLC lose their entire basis. I’m not sure what else you want to happen.

Your post is so far off from reality I’m not even sure we’re talking about the same thing.