What about the right to participate in government? I brought that one up in another comment elsewhere in this thread.
And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system".
It seems tautological to say "it's a right that applies when it applies, therefore it's a negative right".
That same reasoning seems like it could apply to just about anything; access to drinking water is a human right, because once you are in a civilization that moderates your access to water, that civilization must refrain from tampering (as in with pollution, access controls, etc) with your access to it.
> What about the right to participate in government?
The right to participate in government can be viewed as the right to be free from government action without you being given the opportunity to participate. It can be met by government not acting, as well as by you having the opportunity to participate (directly or indirectly) in any decision it makes.
I think that those who hold to the pure negative view of human rights absolutely tend to view the right to participate this way (and frequently to prefer government non-action to action-with-participation.)
> And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system".
What I think you miss is that being "in the justice system" isn't something that happens external to actions of the government. So it can be a purely a negative right, in that it requires government not to subject you to the justice system unless in so doing it also acts in a certain way.
If it was conditioned on something outside of the governments control, then it would not be a pure negative right. Particularly, if you view the right to a fair trial as applying not only to conditions when you are subject to the justice system, but to include a right to bring grievances against the government and other members of society and to have them fairly heard by an appropriate tribunal, then it becomes a positive right, because the situations in which it applies are no longer ones that result from government action. But, again, I think that many people, particularly those that view negative rights as the exclusive human rights, view the right to a fair trial in terms that are consistent with the purely negative view (and the right to a speedy trial is, as generally understood in the US, a right of that type, since it applies only to criminal trials, which occur only as the result of positive government action, so it is a right that is a pure restraint on government action.)
But you do see the kinds of contortions you have to go through now, to frame the good non-property-owning rights as "negative rights", right?
The right participate in one's governance is now "the right to participate in government that you can participate in, because without that right the government would be meddling in your stuff".
If people are happy jumping through those kinds of mental hoops to maintain the purity of a "negative rights are the only rights" worldview then ok, but let's be honest about how we're building these flimsy artifices on an idea that can't really support them.
> The right participate in one's governance is now "the right to participate in government that you can participate in, because without that right the government would be meddling in your stuff".
No, its not. Its the right to be free of any imposition of government other than that which you are allowed to participate in.
Its not a contortion. Its exactly the whole thing that we get the idea of the right to participate from.
Yes, its possible to have different views of what the right to participate should mean, but they are newer and novel interpretations. That doesn't make them wrong, but they aren't the original understanding, and that original understanding isn't a "contortion".
It still sounds like hand-waving about how compelling people to act a certain isn't a negative right when it's one of the good rights that even libertarians would be uncomfortable excluding from the list of human rights.
There's absolutely compulsory behavior going on, even if it's the good kind of compulsory behavior (e.g. setting up structures of power that people have access to).
Unless you want to redefine "negative rights" down until it's "the ones we like, even though people are compelled to do stuff, like create machinery of democracy and not walk onto property claimed by others".
Which, again, ok, if it floats your boat, but it seems more like word games than meaningful discussion about human rights.
And, even with this one, it seems like such a strain to me to say "the right to a fair trial is a negative right because, even though you're compelling the government structures to act in a certain way, it only applies once you're in the justice system".
It seems tautological to say "it's a right that applies when it applies, therefore it's a negative right".
That same reasoning seems like it could apply to just about anything; access to drinking water is a human right, because once you are in a civilization that moderates your access to water, that civilization must refrain from tampering (as in with pollution, access controls, etc) with your access to it.
reply