dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/12/83)
I agree with most of what Tom Craver says in his note (houti.378) on the
nature of rights. However, I have misgivings about this:
A right to some thing is a right to action for that thing - not to have
it handed to one. For example, the right to life is the right to act
to continue one's life, without interference, and without interfering
with others rights.
Sometimes when people talk about a right to something, they DO mean a right
have it handed to one. For instance, the (alleged) right to a job is
usually proposed with the idea that government should provide jobs. I am
not saying that this use of the word "right" (which I call a "positive
right", since it calls for positive action instead of just noninterference)
is a correct one. I am merely pointing out that many people use the word
this way. Actually, I think positive rights are ridiculous, but that's
another story.
--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park