I think what you’re getting at here is something like negative vs positive rights, where negative rights are ‘freedoms from’ (e.g. freedom from discrimination, bondage, exploitation, being killed) and positive rights are ‘freedoms to’ (e.g. freedom to own property, vote, marry).
This may sound like nitpicking, but I think you’ve got these categories slightly confused. At the least, you’ve used these terms in a non-standard way. Traditionally, economic rights like the freedom to own property are seen as negative rights, not positive rights. The reason is because, in many contexts, economic rights are viewed as defenses against arbitrary interference from criminal or state actors (e.g., protection from crime, unjust expropriation, or unreasonable regulations).
In practice, most legal rights are best seen as enshrining a mix of both positive and negative duties. For example, to ensure that individuals have a right to own property, it is both necessary that the state employ law enforcement to protect property rights (a positive duty), but also for the state to refrain from seizing property unjustly (a negative duty).
Since these categories are often difficult to distinguish in practice, I preferred to sidestep this discussion in my post, and focused instead on a dichotomy which felt more relevant to the topic at hand. (Though I recognize that the dichotomy I presented is also vague, and the categories I talked about overlap in various ways, as you mention.)
Traditionally, economic rights like the freedom to own property are seen as negative rights, not positive rights. The reason is because, in many contexts, economic rights are viewed as defenses against arbitrary interference from criminal or state actors (e.g., protection from crime, unjust expropriation, or unreasonable regulations).
Appreciate this – I didn’t know this, makes sense!
Since these categories are often difficult to distinguish in practice, I preferred to sidestep this discussion in my post, and focused instead on a dichotomy which felt more relevant to the topic at hand.
I tend to think that negative vs positive rights remains a better framing than welfare vs rights, partly because I’m not aware of there being a historical precedent for using welfare vs rights in this way. At least in the animal movement this isn’t what that dichotomy means – though perhaps one would see this dichotomy across movements rather than within a single movement. If you have reading on this please do share.
This may sound like nitpicking, but I think you’ve got these categories slightly confused. At the least, you’ve used these terms in a non-standard way. Traditionally, economic rights like the freedom to own property are seen as negative rights, not positive rights. The reason is because, in many contexts, economic rights are viewed as defenses against arbitrary interference from criminal or state actors (e.g., protection from crime, unjust expropriation, or unreasonable regulations).
In practice, most legal rights are best seen as enshrining a mix of both positive and negative duties. For example, to ensure that individuals have a right to own property, it is both necessary that the state employ law enforcement to protect property rights (a positive duty), but also for the state to refrain from seizing property unjustly (a negative duty).
Since these categories are often difficult to distinguish in practice, I preferred to sidestep this discussion in my post, and focused instead on a dichotomy which felt more relevant to the topic at hand. (Though I recognize that the dichotomy I presented is also vague, and the categories I talked about overlap in various ways, as you mention.)
Appreciate this – I didn’t know this, makes sense!
I tend to think that negative vs positive rights remains a better framing than welfare vs rights, partly because I’m not aware of there being a historical precedent for using welfare vs rights in this way. At least in the animal movement this isn’t what that dichotomy means – though perhaps one would see this dichotomy across movements rather than within a single movement. If you have reading on this please do share.