Do you know what a negative versus positive right is? Here is wikipedia’s view of them:
Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. A government, for example, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties
Free speech is a negative right. Free healthcare is a positive right.
Negative and positive rights collide frequently. For instance, I have property rights, except when my property is taken to pay for somebody else’s health care.
Put another way, positive rights ALWAYS take from somebody else who is providing the right. Negative rights never do.
A more recent example of positive rights trampling negative rights occurred in New York this week. Retailer American Eagle Outfitters was forced to modify their employee guidelines so as to permit woman to wear male clothing, and men to wear female clothing. Their negative right to hire who they see fit and have them represent their company for best sales was trampled by politicians eager to soothe a constituency with American Eagle paying the bill.
Positive rights dominate the rights battle field now. Usually because they are politically advantageous to give out. Negative rights lose, and are actually being removed, as in Obama’s recent health care bill which forces you to buy a product.
Positive rights coerce. The more positive rights granted, the less freedom we really have.
We would be freer if the government would stop giving us positive rights.