Hak negatif dan positif

Hak individu A untuk mewajibkan (menguatkuasakan kewajipan ke atas) individu B untuk menahan diri daripada campur tangan fizikal (bersebab) dengan, khususnya tort kecuaian yang mengganggu semata-mata, sesuatu objek atau benda dipanggil hak negatif . ^[1] ^[2] Jadi hak negatif ialah hak tuntutan . Jika hak tuntutan bukan hak negatif, ia dipanggil hak positif . ^[3] Bagi setiap hak tuntutan orang A untuk mewajibkan orang B sepadan dengan kewajipan pada B, jadi obligasi yang sepadan dengan hak negatif dipanggil 'kewajipan negatif' ^[4] dan kewajipan bersamaan dengan hak positif sebagai 'kewajipan positif'. ^[5] Contoh hak negatif ialah hak semula jadi untuk pemilikan diri dan harta seperti tanah dan kedaulatan wilayah negara. Contoh hak positif ialah hak kerajaan untuk menguatkuasakan undang-undang ke atas semua penduduk atau kontrak jualan untuk menerima produk. Fitnah, persaingan pasaran bebas atau keengganan untuk menawarkan perkhidmatan penghantaran bukanlah bentuk kerosakan yang berliku-liku semestinya disebabkan oleh tindakan campur tangan murni. Larangan terhadap tindakan ini adalah kewajipan positif dan hak untuk tidak boleh dicabuli tindakan ini adalah hak positif.

Dalam definisi naif hak negatif dan positif ialah hak yang mewajibkan sama ada peninggalan ( hak negatif ) atau tindakan ( hak positif ). Takrifan ini menjadikan kedua-dua jenis hak setara kerana peninggalan X ialah set semua tindakan yang tidak melibatkan melakukan X, juga merupakan tindakan. Takrifan naif untuk tidak bertindak, iaitu meninggalkan semua tindakan, adalah mustahil, tetapi tidak campur tangan adalah. Hak negatif mungkin termasuk hak sivil dan politik seperti kebebasan bersuara, nyawa, harta peribadi, kebebasan daripada jenayah kekerasan, perlindungan daripada ditipu, kebebasan beragama, habeas corpus, perbicaraan yang adil dan hak untuk tidak diperhambakan oleh orang lain .

Hak positif, seperti yang dicadangkan pada mulanya pada tahun 1979 oleh ahli perundangan Czech Karel Vašák, mungkin termasuk hak sivil dan politik lain seperti hak untuk mendapatkan peguam dan perlindungan polis terhadap orang dan harta benda. Selain itu, ia termasuk hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya seperti makanan, perumahan, pendidikan awam, pekerjaan, keselamatan negara, ketenteraan, penjagaan kesihatan, keselamatan sosial, akses internet dan taraf hidup minimum. Dalam akaun "tiga generasi" hak asasi manusia, hak negatif sering dikaitkan dengan hak generasi pertama, manakala hak positif dikaitkan dengan generasi kedua dan ketiga.

Sesetengah ahli falsafah (lihat kritikan) tidak bersetuju bahawa perbezaan hak negatif-positif adalah berguna atau sah.

Di bawah teori hak positif dan negatif, hak negatif ialah hak untuk tidak dikenakan tindakan orang lain atau kumpulan seperti kerajaan, biasanya berlaku dalam bentuk penderaan atau paksaan . Hak negatif wujud melainkan seseorang bertindak menafikannya . Hak positif ialah hak untuk dikenakan tindakan orang atau kumpulan lain. Dalam rangka perintah kategori Kantian, hak negatif boleh dikaitkan dengan tugas yang sempurna, manakala hak positif boleh dihubungkan dengan tugas yang tidak sempurna .

Kepercayaan dalam perbezaan antara hak positif dan negatif secara amnya dikekalkan, atau ditekankan, oleh golongan libertarian, yang percaya bahawa hak positif tidak wujud sehingga ia dicipta melalui kontrak. Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu menyenaraikan kedua-dua hak positif dan negatif (tetapi tidak mengenal pasti hak tersebut). Perlembagaan kebanyakan demokrasi liberal menjamin hak negatif, tetapi tidak semua termasuk hak positif. Hak positif selalunya dijamin oleh undang-undang lain, dan majoriti demokrasi liberal menyediakan warganya pendidikan yang dibiayai awam, penjagaan kesihatan, keselamatan sosial dan faedah pengangguran .

^ Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Isaiah Berlin on Negative Freedom". The Ethics of Liberty. m/s. 248. ISBN 0391023713. A negative rights is called the right to negative liberty, citation: "Superficially, Berlin's concept of negative liberty seems similar to the thesis of the present volume: that liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property.. Berlin's fundamental flaw was his failure to define negative liberty as the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined."
^ Rand, Ayn (1988). The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z. m/s. 40. ISBN 9780452010512. Citations p246: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights..", p40: "an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference"
^ Block, Walter (1986). The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Ethical and Economic Perspective]. SSRN 1896495. Citation: "In classical philosophy, negative rights or negative liberty consist solely of the right not to have physical force, or the threat thereof, initiated against oneself. Each person, then, has the right not to be murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted, battered, etc. The doctrine of positive "rights," in contrast, typically holds that people have the right to food, clothing, shelter, and, depending on which variant is under discussion, to a reasonable lifestyle, to non-discriminatory behaviour, to meaningful relationships, to psychological well-being, to employment, to a decent wage, etc."
^ Homowy, Ronald (2008). "Individual Rights". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. m/s. 246. Citation:"each person is born to a negative obligation to leave others in the peaceful enjoyment of their persons and their own property.. property rights are negative rights. In the absence of special complications, one’s property rights only impose on others the duty not to trespass and to leave one free to do as one sees fit with oneself and one’s own property"
^ Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Children and Rights". The Ethics of Liberty. m/s. 139. ISBN 0391023713. Citation:"On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced."

[1] Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Isaiah Berlin on Negative Freedom". The Ethics of Liberty. m/s. 248. ISBN 0391023713. A negative rights is called the right to negative liberty, citation: "Superficially, Berlin's concept of negative liberty seems similar to the thesis of the present volume: that liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property.. Berlin's fundamental flaw was his failure to define negative liberty as the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined."

[2] Rand, Ayn (1988). The Ayn Rand lexicon: objectivism from A to Z. m/s. 40. ISBN 9780452010512. Citations p246: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights..", p40: "an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference"

[3] Block, Walter (1986). The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Ethical and Economic Perspective]. SSRN 1896495. Citation: "In classical philosophy, negative rights or negative liberty consist solely of the right not to have physical force, or the threat thereof, initiated against oneself. Each person, then, has the right not to be murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted, battered, etc. The doctrine of positive "rights," in contrast, typically holds that people have the right to food, clothing, shelter, and, depending on which variant is under discussion, to a reasonable lifestyle, to non-discriminatory behaviour, to meaningful relationships, to psychological well-being, to employment, to a decent wage, etc."

[4] Homowy, Ronald (2008). "Individual Rights". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. m/s. 246. Citation:"each person is born to a negative obligation to leave others in the peaceful enjoyment of their persons and their own property.. property rights are negative rights. In the absence of special complications, one’s property rights only impose on others the duty not to trespass and to leave one free to do as one sees fit with oneself and one’s own property"

[5] Rothbard, Murray (1982). "Children and Rights". The Ethics of Liberty. m/s. 139. ISBN 0391023713. Citation:"On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]