Submitted by limelemon on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 08:43.
I don't like positive listings of things people should have. It can give the false impression that those freedoms being listed:
1. are being granted to you by some higher authority
2. are limited to those enumerated
3. can be regulated
Also, if there's a list that begins "everyone should be free to…", then socialists will come along and add to the list -- "…be free to have free access to healthcare", etc.
I prefer negative rights -- everyone should be free from... aggression against their person or property.
positive vs. negative rights
I don't like positive listings of things people should have. It can give the false impression that those freedoms being listed:
1. are being granted to you by some higher authority
2. are limited to those enumerated
3. can be regulated
Also, if there's a list that begins "everyone should be free to…", then socialists will come along and add to the list -- "…be free to have free access to healthcare", etc.
I prefer negative rights -- everyone should be free from... aggression against their person or property.
Positive vs. Negative Rights
Gee, what a logical article
The author forwards the notion that people ought to own themselves and the fruits of their labor and be free to associate as they wish.
(He's obviously a terrorist bent on destroying freedom... /end sarcasm)
True freedom
is the ability to be left alone. Simple as that. That's the freedom they'll never let people have.