Positive Rights Aren’t Positive

     Negative rights and positive rights are both commonly discussed in modern political theory and economics, but they are fundamentally different. Negative rights protect an individual's freedom by requiring others not to interfere with that person, while positive rights claim that an individual is entitled to receive a good or service, requiring someone else to provide it. The words negative and positive in this context do not mean bad and good. Instead, they describe what is required to fulfill the right. A negative right requires others to refrain from violating your freedom, while a positive right requires someone to take additional action by providing something for your benefit. Although positive rights are often treated as legitimate human rights, they are an oxymoron: rather than simply protecting one person's freedom, they can require the use of another person's time, labor, or resources against their will. A right meant to protect human freedom should not depend on violating someone else's freedom to fulfill it.

     Imagine a world with only three people, one of whom is a doctor. Does one of the other two people automatically have a right to the doctor’s services? Not necessarily. The doctor has spent time and effort learning a skill, and the ability to use that skill belongs to him. If someone wants his services, they can offer to pay him in exchange for his time and knowledge. That is trade. But if the other person claims that healthcare is a right, regardless of the doctor’s wishes, the situation changes. The doctor is no longer simply choosing whether to provide a service; someone else is claiming an entitlement to his labor.

     Tax-funded healthcare makes this issue less obvious, but it does not make it disappear. The money used to pay for healthcare still comes from people who worked to earn it. Doctors, plumbers, electricians, and everyone else who pays taxes contribute time and resources toward a service that someone else receives. Supporters of these programs may argue that sharing the cost benefits society as a whole, but that does not answer the underlying question: does a person’s need automatically create an obligation for someone else to meet it?

     This does not mean that people have no rights concerning their health. If a food company sells contaminated food that makes someone sick, the company may have violated that person’s rights, and the victim may have grounds to sue. The difference is that the company caused the harm. The right protects a person from being harmed by someone else; it does not automatically require an unrelated doctor to provide treatment. One right prevents another person from violating your freedom, while the other claims access to that person’s time, labor, or resources.

     The debate over positive rights became especially prominent in American politics during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. His New Deal policies expanded the federal government’s role in responding to economic hardship, and in 1944, he proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” that included economic security, healthcare, and education. Supporters saw these as necessary protections for people who lacked basic resources. However, critics can argue that describing these needs as rights changes the meaning of the word. Instead of protecting people from interference, the government is expected to provide services, which requires funding and the labor of others.

     Ultimately, the question is not whether healthcare, education, or economic security are valuable. They clearly can be. The question is whether something valuable automatically becomes a natural right that other people are obligated to provide. A person can deserve help without having an unlimited claim to someone else’s labor. If rights are meant to protect individual freedom, we should be careful not to use the language of freedom to justify taking that freedom away from someone else.