There are two fundamental types of rights by which any given right can be subsequently categorized very simply; by nature, they are polar opposites and contradictory to one another. These types are called negative rights and positive rights. This system coincides with the state’s imposition of negative and positive sanctions, which I discussed in a previous essay.

The concept of negative rights refers to those which require that something not be done. An example of this would be the right to life which in essence requires those adhering to the law to simply refrain from taking the life of those protected by this right. This is a natural right, and it is therefore universally deemed legitimate. Negative rights are rights which protect these natural rights, doing nothing more than that. Promoters of small government and libertarian ideals recognize these as the only rights to which people are truly entitled.

On the other hand, positive rights are those which obligate someone to do something. Those who promote the right to healthcare imposed by the state, for example, are participating in this concept. In that instance, someone is involuntarily obligated to provide healthcare services to anyone granted this right. Moreover, someone–namely the taxpayer–is obligated to fund this. Rather than serving to protect a natural right, such a “right” as this instead violates the liberties of one or more parties in order to provide something for another party. Due to inherent logistical inhibitions, it is impossible for anyone to equally enjoy positive rights; therefore, these cannot be natural rights.

Many critics of libertarian philosophy promote the idea that human rights are more important than property rights, and that the protection of the former should thus be prioritized. This, however, is an impossible notion that implies that the two are separable in the first place. In truth, private property rights are a form of human rights which ensure that other rights, such as the right of free speech, can be exercised in the most efficient possible manner.

If you were to enter someone’s house or other private property and begin some sort of unwelcome discourse under the pretense that the First Amendment protects such actions, and that any such exception to this is “abridging the freedom of speech,” you would more than likely be forcibly removed from the property–perhaps even arrested depending on the context. You may argue that this is a violation of your right of free speech. Of course, it would be irrational to make this assumption, as this sort of behavior is clearly unlawful; this is common sense.

It is at this very point in the discussion that private property promoters and human rights advocates would divert in their approaches to this matter. When considered alone, human rights are a system of blurry lines with few absolutes as to the extent to which they should be applied. It could be said that the right of free speech should be curtailed at times to a certain extent–within reason, of course. However, by what standards can such a broad concept as this be enforced?

This leads back to the necessity of property rights. Only in a system where private property ownership prevails are absolutes possible; a particular property owner establishes the guidelines which subsequently apply to anyone on the property. Public ownership, government ownership, or common ownership do not allow for this; because there is no specific entity in charge of determining to what extent free speech is applicable, the result is a subjective system with no absolutes which can be manipulated for the benefit of one group or other. 🔹