Positive rights are repayment for the protection provided by the State (they are part of the "Social Contract")

Positive rights entail a threat, but do not address the problem of the original crime...

The only way to uphold a positive right is to threaten the "victim" with consequences should they fail to comply with the instruction. This is different from negative rights which are upheld immediately by using force to prevent the transgressor from continuing.

If we imagine a "squatter" who has decided to inhabit a property considered to belong to another person... The negative right of the owner to exclude people from squatting might be upheld by a threat (of violence) which results in the person choosing to leave.

The response to a squatter from someone who claims positive rights might be, that to compensate for the hardship of having their property violated, the squatter must pay a fee to the victim. Of course, this must be accompanied with the threat that further action will be taken if the fee is not paid. But the fee does not remedy the problem. It would be absurd if the request for a fee is not accompanied with a request to leave as well, unless the squatter has now become a tenant and the crime has been forgiven...

Assuming a fine is requested and still the squatter has no "right" to stay (they have not become a tenant) then what purpose does the fine serve, surely it is a distraction? Only the repulsive part of the punishment addresses the problem.

We might feel that, in this situation a payment might be reasonable to compensate the victim... But what if the fee (representing positive rights) replaced the instruction to leave (negative rights) entirely? Effectively, the squatter would have forced themselves into a position of being a tenant, against the will of the landowner. And without the fee being paid, the instruction to leave remains... The fee delays the punishment.

So then, a positive right must be a compensating "payment" (of any form) which delays the eventual punishment... Asking for a fee in excess of the the property being returned does not serve justice because if the property is returned, then that is as it should be. If the State considers that the perpetrator "should" be punished beyond merely returning the original property (perhaps to help pay for the cost of law-enforcement... but this would be a negative right (confiscation, not making someone do something)), then perhaps (further) property can be removed from the criminal but there is no strong reason that it should be given to the victim (again, no positive rights are necessary).


Assuming no crime has been committed, and we are no longer talking about the squatter, then a positive right would be something like a claim to the right for free health care, provided by the State, or for the State to demand Income Tax. Given that the individual has little ability to threaten the Government if services are poor, the claim to a "right" to good State health care is an empty claim (the Government are not forced to provide it). It is a suggestion (not a right) that we should receive good "free" health care...

To collect Income Tax, the State must threaten the individual with dire consequences for not paying... a removal of property rights (but not aggression since only the State upholds the property rights... (landowners are subordinate)). But is this (a threat of) violence if it only means that the State chooses to recognise different property rights? If we (agree to) receive protection from the State (for our property) do we then agree that Income Tax (and the other duties of being a citizen) is part of that exchange and not a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? What happens if we don't agree to the "contract", is it right that the State then take all of the land? Or does your land become an "island" (a Nation-State) independent of the land surrounding you? In which case (if you reject the protection of the State) there would be no reason that "their" laws would (legitimately) apply to you...

Unless we (have) agree(d) to the Social Contract (but then, if we have, we would be talking about a contract, not positive rights), positive rights are a violation of the NAP since they entail the threat of violence.

If two "freemen" (who are detached from the State; have not agreed to the "social contract") encounter one-another, one would have no "right" to demand an action or behaviour of the other person... this would be aggressive. Our response to a claim to a positive right must always be: What are you going to do if I don't perform as you wish?

Thursday 16 April 2009