Equality is an idea with which most people would agree. But what is equality really? For some, it may mean that all are afforded access to and, if need be, provision of the necessities in life (e.g., food, water, medical services, shelter). For others, it may mean that all are equal under their given authority (e.g., the state, our god(s)). Maybe it is a combination of these, or maybe this is completely off the mark for most people. The unifying idea behind equality is that all people ought to be the same, but how should they be the same? If equality is something to which one should aspire, should people be made equal or are they already equal?
The nature of man is that each individual is different. Not one person is exactly the same as another. Therefore, people are either already equal or they need to be made equal. This is where negative and positive rights disagree.
A negative right can be classified as a right which requires no action from another in order that that right be preserved. A positive right, however, requires that in order for one’s right to be met, an action is required of another individual. Can a system in which both positive and negative rights exist?
Murray Rothbard has shown that all rights can be condensed to that of property rights, and Stephan Kinsella does an excellent job of concisely stating how those property rights exist. Kinsella points out that:
Libertarians believe in self-ownership. Nonlibertarians — statists — of all stripes advocate some form of slavery.
For one’s positive right to be fulfilled, another person’s negative right must be violated. Either Person A has the right to control the actions of Person B, or Person B has the authority over their own actions. All are equal in that they come into existence with the same negative rights. But all are unequal in that each individual has a unique set of characteristics. Positive rights are introduced to force each individual to be the same as the next individual.
But what happens when Person B acts willingly to give to Person A? What if all acted willingly to provide for those in need? Would it then be possible for negative and positive rights to coexist? No. If all acted on their own accord, then they would merely be choosing to meet the needs of others. These are acts of charity or compassion. It cannot be derived that because one chooses to act charitably, the person benefiting from this action is then entitled to receive this action. Indeed, the only way one can have a positive right is if another does not have a negative right; and the only way for all to have positive rights is for no one to have negative rights. Negative rights can never be extinguished, however. An individual is always the sole owner of their body, and scarce resources are always controlled by an individual or group of individuals.
I just finished reading The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a great story. The author uses this book to set the stage for a three book series. His writing style paints beautiful pictures that capture your mind as you follow the story of Kvothe. Kvothe’s own telling will keep this book in your hands until it’s completely absorbed leaving you pleading for the next novel The Wise Man’s Fears due out in March 2011. Patrick Rothfuss will be touring the nation to perform book signings and/or readings of his new book upon its release.