• Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn’t a ‘at gunpoint’ interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.

      I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.

      So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.