Negative and Positive Rights
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
—Thomas Jefferson—
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
—Samuel Adams—
Part 3 is available here.
We begin our discussion this week with a brief Bible study. Properly interpreted, the Bible is the source that never misinforms or misleads anyone.
The principle that righteousness is a matter of the heart is upheld and strongly emphasized in the New Testament (see Matt 5:20–6:18 [5:20-48; 6:1-18]; 15:10-20), but we find it in the Old Testament as well. Proverbs 4:23 says, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it springs the issues of life.”
We also see this truth in the Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Ex 20:17). Does this mean we are to be totally ambivalent about our neighbor’s possessions and not to desire to have nice things for ourselves? No. A desire by itself isn’t a sin; but coveting is. We can and should be content with what we have, yet at the same time be motivated to improve our situation by attaining more through hard work. Coveting a neighbor’s possession can lead to stealing. This would be a violation of the Eighth Commandment (see Ex. 20:15) and an illegitimate means of acquiring the thing or things one wants. Yet through hard work and wise use of earned money, a person can acquire goods legitimately. It’s important, however, never to forget God in the process. As the Lord instructed His people in Deuteronomy 8:18, “And you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.”
Against this biblical backdrop, let’s consider two kinds of rights. Last time, we described differences between the first two of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms—freedom of speech and freedom of worship—and the last two—freedom from want and freedom from fear. The first two represent one category of rights and the last two a second category. To maintain the first two as rights, government needs primarily to stay out of the way and allow people to speak and worship freely. Maintaining the “rights” of a national populace to be free from want and fear, however, compel government to act in ways that invade people’s lives. In fact, such government activity can and often does infringe on rights in the first category—the kind of rights people cannot enjoy unless government stays out of the way.
Social and political scientists call rights that fall in the first category negative rights and those that fall in the second category positive rights. Some make a distinction between negative and positive rights and negative and positive liberties, but for our purposes here, we will use these terms interchangeably. Writing at libertarianism.org,1 Aaron Ross Powell explains,
If we want to start very simple, keeping our definitions to just two words each, negative liberty means “freedom from,” while positive liberty means “capacity to.”
Another way of thinking about the difference—though again, it’s a rough one—is to see negative liberty as being about the absence of external limits, while positive liberty is about the absence of internal limits.
Powell goes on to offer an example.
Scenario one: Jack has family members in California and wants to visit them. He lives in New York, so he has to travel a great distance to make the visit. Seen from the perspective of negative rights, Jack has a right to make the trip because he is free make it and should not be hindered from doing so. Yet suppose someone comes along and kidnaps Jack or steals his car. Describing these situations, we would be correct in saying Jack’s negative right to travel to the Golden State has been violated because he has been prevented from exercising his right to make the trip. However, if in these ways or in others no one keeps him from making the trip, Jack’s right to go to California will not have been violated—even if, in the end, he chooses not to go.
Scenario two: Suppose, though, that Jack lives in poverty and can’t afford to make the long journey to the west coast. Or perhaps he has a bad back and can’t endure the rigors of travel for a long time. No one is preventing him from making the trip, so his negative right to travel isn’t being violated. Even so, seeing the situation from a positive rights standpoint, someone would say Jack has been hindered from exercising his right to visit family members because he lacks what he needs to go to California. Advocates of Jack’s positive right to travel would make the case his capacity to journey westward should be secured.
From a negative-rights standpoint—the first scenario—government needs to stay out of Jack’s way and let him make the trip if he decides to go. Hopefully government also would pursue and punish any kidnapper or thief.
In the second situation, assuming the state sees Jack’s trip as a right, what might government do? We do not have to guess. It will tax and redistribute resources to make it possible for Jack to visit his family! Even though in this situation we can say that taxpayers’ rights have been violated because they are being forced to pay for a trip for someone they never have met, as well as a trip that brings no measurable benefit to the public at large, in the end these facts don’t much matter. Why? Because a positive-rights perspective tends to focus exclusively on the meeting of positive rights, through whatever means. Keep in mind that with such rights, we aren’t speaking only of Jack, but of many, many others as well; and while we probably aren’t talking about excursions to California, Jack’s trip illustrates well the impact that positive rights have on others. Consider this also: Advocates of negative rights seek to create equal opportunities for all rather than the equal outcomes sought by proponents of positive rights.
Proponents of negative rights seek equal opportunities for all while advocates of positive rights focus on equal outcomes.
The Founders of the United States of America understood the importance of providing opportunities rather than engineering outcomes. They thus enshrined in the Constitution through the Bill of Rights a series of liberties based on an understanding of rights as negative rights, even though they probably didn’t think of it in those terms.
Unfortunately, in recent decades in this country, the emphasis has shifted 180 degrees, and many, many people—perhaps most—don’t even realize the change has occurred. Under the leadership of progressives and those who refuse to challenge them, our government now goes ballistic in its efforts to make sure rights are secured and maintained from a positive rights perspective. Does this violate people’s fundamental negative rights? Yes, but no matter. As we have said, a positive rights perspective is consumed with securing equal outcomes.
It is no coincidence that, as we have moved from upholding negative rights to promoting positive ones, the national climate has decreased in terms of healthy ambition and has become much more self-centered. We are a nation obsessed with positive rights—like the “right” not to be offended! Mark it down. It is very telling that as our obsession has increased, so has the number of incidents in which offended people actively have sought to silence others. Many have become hyper-sensitive, offended over things they simply should see as expressions of opinions different from their own.
Can’t you see it? The right to free speech and the “right” not to be offended cannot coexist with each other. You show me a nation that, between these two, places a higher priority on free speech, and I’ll show you one where people inevitably will be offended—not in every situation, but at least occasionally. Actually, in such a country, people tend to respect the right of others to disagree with them, and they are less readily offended than they otherwise would be. On the other hand, you show me a country that values not offending people to a greater extent than free speech, and I’ll show you one in which speech is being regulated and curtailed. There is no way any government can protect both of these “rights” equally; nor will any government try, because it will tip the scales one way or the other. In America the “right” not to be offended is not a part of our Constitution and free speech is, but which of these do you think now has the upper hand?
The right to free speech and the “right” not to be offended cannot coexist with each other.
Moving on to a more specific example, let’s consider the recent national debate on bathroom access. This debate not only demonstrates the miniscule size of the group progressives will bend over backwards not to offend; it also shows just how far government is willing to go in violating the negative rights of the majority to secure the positive rights of a select few. There’s more. The debate also teaches us taxation and redistribution of wealth isn’t the only means by which our government will violate negative rights. In this instance, it is willfully running roughshod over the privacy rights of the majority in order to meet the demands of the LGBT community. This doesn’t just portend tyranny, it is tyranny!
Consistent with all these factors is the reality that the culture is hyper-focused on individualism and personal autonomy. Remember our Bible lesson at the beginning. While negative rights cannot make a person pure or righteous, they emphasize and encourage the right things. They motivate people to work hard and to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Positive rights, in contrast, foster covetousness and a self-centered attitude. Certainly an emphasis on positive rights hasn’t been the only factor in the decline of our culture, but it has been an important one.
Partly because they have had so much to gain, progressives have used government to orchestrate the national discussion in the direction of promoting positive rights. As a result, now more than ever, government is meddling in affairs it is incapable of efficiently managing. A Summit Ministries article dated February 15, 2010 and titled “Is Government-Run Health Care a Good Idea?” discusses negative and positive rights and offers a great deal of insight on this issue. We will summarize a point or two in the article but also will quote portions at length to make sure we do not misrepresent what it says (hyperlinks have been added).
A dodo bird, some have observed, never was designed to fly. Similarly, government never was designed, nor is it equipped, to do certain things. Understanding negative and positive rights helps us recognize the limits of government’s role and hopefully can equip us to raise a red flag when government is about to overstep its responsibilities.
Negative rights are those that cannot be negated, or taken away, without diminishing our fundamental humanity and freedoms. In The Declaration of Independence, these rights are listed as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Further, human rights are considered “unalienable,” meaning they are basic to our human condition as creatures made in God’s image and, therefore, cannot be taken away or manipulated by government.
Genesis 9:1-6 records God’s mandate for establishing civil government; to protect our right to life and liberty by bringing evil doers to justice. [We see this echoed in the New Testament as well.] The government, therefore, is the social organization designated to protect God-given rights from being abused or taken away by others.
Positive rights, on the other hand, are aspects of human life that contribute to our basic needs for survival. Examples are food, shelter, education, and medical care. These needs have traditionally been the responsibility of the individual, the family, and local community groups, such as the church and charitable organizations. This has been the teaching of the church and comes from a number of biblical passages. Jesus said, for example, to help the poor and the sick, but this was spoken to his disciples, not the Roman government (see, for example, Matthew 10:8; 25:31-46]. Jesus also taught that Caesar’s authority was subordinate to God’s.
Therefore, the article goes on to say, we see the principle of sphere sovereignty upheld in Scripture. Government has its own designated roles and responsibilities, the family has its own, and the church has its own. No entity should try to take on the tasks another entity was created to fulfill. Attempting to do so would mean interfering with and usurping the authority of the sphere designed to perform those tasks. The article continues:
Back to the central question; should government try to provide positive rights? Based on the primary truths of human nature and the role of government, we find at least two reasons that government is not designed to provide positive rights.
First, positive rights involve too many variables. An individual’s positive needs (for food, shelter, etc.) vary from year to year, even day to day. For example, an able bodied 32-year old has different needs than a 31-month old or a feeble 93-year old. A bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere cannot possibly know the changing needs of every individual citizen or how best to meet them. The most a government agency can do is try to enforce general guidelines, a one-size-fits-all approach, and because it cannot anticipate the variables of day-to-day life, there will inevitably be shortages, inefficiency, and waste of manpower and money.
This principle is clearly seen when government intervenes in economic matters. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Jefferson understood the limits of what government is capable of doing. It is not designed to orchestrate people’s basic needs, even one as fundamental as food.
Second, the only means government has to accomplish its goals is the use of force. George Washington put it this way, “Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Force works well when it comes to protecting negative rights, which is the reason for the military, police, and the courts. But to place the power of government over the day-to-day lives of citizens sets up a tremendous potential for abuse. People begin to demand more services. This is a formula for creating shortages, leading to unmet expectations by citizens, which creates social unrest. This is the opposite of the state’s responsibility for maintaining social cohesion and order.
As convincing as all of this is, we actually can poke even more holes in the case for a national promotion of positive rights. In his excellent work, Social Justice: How Good Intentions Undermine Justice and Gospel, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation founder and spokesman Calvin Beisner discusses extensively the differences between negative and positive rights.
Drawing from economist Walter Block, Beisner demonstrates that negative rights are applicable in society at large, reasonable, and workable; and that positive rights are unrealistic and unworkable, sometimes even to the point of being absurd. Summarizing Beisner’s discussion of Block, we note the following.
- Negative rights transcend time. Just as a prehistoric man or woman could enjoy his or her right to be left alone, so can we. The same is not true of positive rights. We never can reasonably say that a person from the 18th century had a right to modern, 21st century medical care or modern means of transportation, can we?
- Negative rights are readily understandable because they are easily recognized. Moreover, they are realistic. We can respect negative rights of others by resolving not to kill them, steal from them, or lie about them; but we cannot, simply by resolving to do so, give everyone in the world the same standard of living most North Americans enjoy. We actually can’t do this by trying to engineer it, either. It simply isn’t possible.
- A negative-rights perspective is realistic about the difference between moral and immoral actions by human beings and acts of nature. Ridiculously, a positive rights perspective implies that a tornado that destroyed a family’s home violated that family’s rights!
- Because “positive rights are not merely equal rights but rights to equal things,” a positive-rights perspective can make the case that any inequality between individuals or groups is a violation of rights. A negative-rights perspective, however, sees rights in terms of equal opportunities for all, regardless of the other differences that exist.
- Where is the concept of charity in a positive-rights point of view? Even if you look high and low, you won’t find it. If government is charged with securing and maintaining positive rights, it and it alone is the benefactor. In addition, a positive-rights perspective implies that when an individual gives money to help the poor or otherwise disadvantaged person, any discrepancy in the assets of the recipient and the assets of the giver after the gift represents a violation of the recipient’s right to equality!
- A positive-rights perspective asserts that equal outcomes are desirable, yet some attributes among individuals cannot be equalized. The family into which one is born, age, IQ, height, sex—all of these and more—are differences that cannot be altered or changed (despite everything the transgender movement claims). On the other hand, negative rights are equal at the outset and can be applied to everyone universally. For example, we readily see that each person has an equal right not to be mistreated, molested, or mugged.
Beisner writes a two-sentence summary worth committing to memory. He says, “Properly understood, rights are not guarantees that something will be provided for us but guarantees that what is ours will not be unjustly taken from us. That is, properly speaking, rights are not positive but negative.”
Properly understood, rights are not guarantees that something will be provided for us but guarantees that what is ours will not be unjustly taken from us. That is, properly speaking, rights are not positive but negative.
—Calvin Beisner—
Therefore, negative rights aren’t really negative in the way we typically define the term. Moreover, positive rights, especially when pursued by government with abandon, will bring extremely negative consequences on a nation. Next time, we’ll talk even more about some of the consequences of our nation’s obsession with positive rights.
Be sure to exercise your right to return! If one or more people try to stop you, share this post with them.
Meanwhile, please be in prayer for America.
Part 5 is available here.
Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
top image credit: www.lightstock.com
1The citing of the libertarianism.org should not be construed as endorsement of every tenet of libertarianism or of everything found on this website.
Be First to Comment