Positive Rights as Means Not Ends | The Freeman

Negative rights, such as the right to free speech, limit the State’s power to interfere with choices citizens might make. The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law….”  Negative rights do not require other people or entities to provide human or material resources to make that right a reality.  Others are simply required to refrain from doing things that interfere; hence, the term “negative right.”

Positive rights, by contrast, require others to provide such resources.   For a “right” to health care or education to have real meaning, it must entail the ability to coerce others into providing health care or educational services as needed.

Interesting thoughts from Steven Horwitz about positive rights v. negative rights. It’s important for us to remember (and more importantly, our elected officials) that the Constitution is, by design, a statement of negative rights.

The framers intended for the federal government to have very limited, enumerated powers- not the overreaching, meddling government we have today.

We need to begin the movement back to the Founders’ original intent.