Throughout societies in history and presently, we can see the employment of two primary forms of rights: positive and negative. The bulk of the following attempts to highlight the differences between the two. The proponents of each will also be discussed.Negative rights are simply “freedom from” certain things. For example, freedom from false imprisonment, from illegal search and seizure, freedom of speech, are all forms of negative rights. This concept is totally Lockean in nature. They are called “negative rights” because government ensures them by not doing things or restricting the actions of others. Negative rights can also be viewed as placing a protective wall around us.Positive rights are somewhat different. Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. If we were to make this a negative right to healthcare, this would mean no one may prevent me from getting medical attention, however, neither the State nor any person other than myself is responsible for acquiring it. I believe both Locke and Mill would defend negative rights. Locke is a proponent simply because he feels that some rights must be suspended in order for government to protect others. It can be seen that Mill supports negative rights through the “bridge walker” example. We can only stop the man crossing the bridge to ensure he is aware of the condition of the bridge; otherwise we may not interfere with anyone. Another good example for Mill is the corn dealer situation. True, the crowd may say what it wants so long as it does not cause harm. I believe that this restriction, NOT CAUSE HARM, is what makes this a negative right. Furthermore, if this restriction were not in place, and harm was done to the corn dealer (death), then the dealer’s rights are violated. This is a good ex...
