# Compulsive vs. nonrestrictive rights

**URL:** <https://forum.lpsf.org/t/compulsive-vs-nonrestrictive-rights/10289>\
**Category:** Discussion\
**Created:** [May 29, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://forum.lpsf.org/t/compulsive-vs-nonrestrictive-rights/10289 "2008-05-29T17:10:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![crismxml](https://forum.lpsf.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/bcef8e/32.png) [@crismxml](https://forum.lpsf.org/u/crismxml)\
**Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://forum.lpsf.org/t/compulsive-vs-nonrestrictive-rights/10289/1 "2008-05-29T17:10:01Z")

</div>

Many libertarians and other political thinkers use the terms “negative  
rights” and ”positive rights” to refer to two classes of so-called  
rights. The right of free speech is a “negative right” because it  
involves a lack of restriction on an individual; the right to health  
care is a “positive right” because it requires that some agency deliver  
the “right” to the individual.

I have never liked this terminology, because from a libertarian point of  
view, only the “negative rights” are legitimate; the others involve a  
“right” to compel service from others, which infringes on \*their\*  
rights. I have wanted for a while to find better terminology for this.

Reading about Jesse Jackson Jr.’s book and his eight proposed  
Constitutional amendments (\<URL:  
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_More\_Perfect\_Union:\_Advancing\_New\_American\_Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union:_Advancing_New_American_Rights) \>) got me thinking about this again.

What do you think about “nonrestrictive rights” for the freedom rights  
and “compulsive rights” for privileges that compel service from others?

I really like the latter; I could use a better (upbeat, positive) term  
for the former.

~Chris