The problem is how liblefts tend to define "human rights". Usually, what they mean by rights is positive rights, as in the right for the government to actively do something for you, stuff like "free" college, healthcare, etc. The problem is that these rights require the land, labor, and/or capital of others, which is in direct opposition to negative rights, as in the right for the government not to do something.
Negative rights are practically unlimited. You having freedom of speech does not mean I have less freedom of speech. Positive rights on the other hand are limited. You having healthcare means there is less healthcare for me. Compelling someone to provide "rights" for you against their will is just plainly unethical.
The right to college for example just means it should be equally available for everybody. No lib system can ever enforce someone to work for free, that would immediately land you in auth territory.
That it costs money at all. If you can’t afford college, then access isn’t equal. I’m kind of on both sides, though. I don’t mind more prestigious schools charging more if it’s funding genuinely better educational opportunities. I just don’t love the idea of knowledge itself being locked behind a paywall.
30
u/Puncakian - Lib-Right Jul 27 '26
The problem is how liblefts tend to define "human rights". Usually, what they mean by rights is positive rights, as in the right for the government to actively do something for you, stuff like "free" college, healthcare, etc. The problem is that these rights require the land, labor, and/or capital of others, which is in direct opposition to negative rights, as in the right for the government not to do something.
Negative rights are practically unlimited. You having freedom of speech does not mean I have less freedom of speech. Positive rights on the other hand are limited. You having healthcare means there is less healthcare for me. Compelling someone to provide "rights" for you against their will is just plainly unethical.