Sunday, June 10, 2007

[human rights] are there negative rights

The ongoing discussion on rights over at Free Jersey might be interesting for any libertarian. Charles Robertson says:

...some basis for negative rights - my right not to be assaulted by you, for example...

and:

...It's the positive rights - the rights to something - which places an obligation on someone else to provide something...

We're clearly in broad agreement here. However, on the "right not to be assaulted", I'm not so sure.

I certainly want mechanisms in place to prevent such things, e.g. well lit streets, Bobbies on patrol etc., but to legislate that the other has no right to assault you - surely that could be handled by a group of peers who convene to discuss the matter.

Where this breaks down now is on the question of punishment. I haven't thought that one through yet. Any ideas?

3 comments:

  1. Do we have any at all in the UK?

    Anyway all of our 'rights' are conditional. No matter where you are.

    You have the right to life but it can be taken by an officer of the law if he percieves you a threat.
    You have the right to justice. But only if it fits into the local justice system.
    You have the right to defend yourself but only if it fits into the local rules.

    Personally, I'm getting a bit confused about rights. What exactly are they and what makes them so special?

    In the meantime I'll go and look at that thread.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I don't see that anybody has a right to assault anyone else, except maybe in self defence. I think there are negative rights - surely the right to live my life more or less as I wish as long as I do not interfere with your right to do the same is what democracy is founded on?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not a fan of the concept of punishment generally, James.
    I think, myself, it's a bit medieval and often counter-prodtive.

    It's fine for the justice system to provide deterrent, security and/or rehabilitation (If you think about it, those two are mutually exclusive in many cases), but the eye for an eye concept. in justice, is pretty barbaric.

    not something that should be a part of society in the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.