Any "right" such as these that requires the coercion of the most basic and fundamental right, property of one's own self and actions, seems to contradict itself as a "right", right from the beginning.
As a libertarian, I suppose I would concur with the ideal of human rights, in principle.
I feel that rights systems can aid in securing human freedom and dignity, so from a humane perspective I agree with them.
But to me the question is what rights should be considered human rights? I must say that I do not agree with all of the rights listed within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Right to life? Yes. Right against slavery? Yes. Right to marry? Yes. But rights to education and healthcare? No. Positive rights (e.g. a "right to" something) infringe on the freedoms of others. So if one claims a right to education, then someone has to provide it. The teacher then would have to sacrifice some of his or her time in order to educate another. A central aspect of freedom is living life as you want to live it. If we own ourselves, then no higher or external power holds the ultimate right to choose for ourselves.
Yes, in the sense that may not be denied, much like the right to free speech.
That something is a right does not imply that it must be provided for, on the other hand. It would make no sense to provide free speech, would it?
Public school violates the right to education, because it denies children the education of their choosing. The medical system violates the right to health care by forbidding access to drugs and medical professions.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The only human right is the right to be left alone.
Peace
edward_1313:Any "right" such as these that requires the coercion of the most basic and fundamental right, property of one's own self and actions, seems to contradict itself as a "right", right from the beginning.
I take it this also applies to the "right to a trial by a jury of one's peers," and the "right to an attorney" as well, since they would involve the coercion of attorneys or jurors?
What is the libertarian position on these kinds of rights?
on a side note, what's the difference between postive rights and neagtive rights?
It all depends on what view of rights you're using. If you're asking about what natural rights we have, then I'm not sure there's any answer to that. If you're asking what rights make sense for us to recognize in others, so that they'll recognize them in us (the Hobbesian view), then that's another issue. If you're asking what rights we ought to recognize because they represent the proper respect with which others should be treated, then it's another thing altogether. If you're asking what rights we would agree to in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, then that's another thing as well. Each view will almost certainly produce different views about what rights people have (or what rights ought to be recognized).
Very simply (perhaps too simply), positive rights are rights to things, and negative rights are rights to the absence of things. So the right to health care is a positive right, because it requires that you get something. The right to not be killed unjustly, on the other hand, is a negative right, because it requires that you not be killed.
One only has the right to self interest. Unfortunately that's the first thing government takes.