ample of why some rights must be given up in order to protect others.With regards to the positive rights, I believe Marx is the best example while simultaneously being the worst. Marx contends that humans must be free from both external and internal constraints, in order to achieve liberation and self-fulfillment. However, I think this causes some confusion. I believe we could find certain situations where both positive and negative rights would apply. For instance, if people are to achieve liberation and self-fulfillment, then I assume the people must be fed. This would be an example of a positive right; all persons have the right to eat. However, at the same time, a manager of a farm is restricted from exploiting his workers because that would inhibit their abilities to achieve their liberation and fulfillment. This issue of Marx brings us to what conception I find most convincing. The fact of the matter is I do not find either concept of rights to be superior. Moreover, I do not believe one can exist independently of the other. For instance, as the Marx examples indicated, it seems that all positive rights must have a negative right attached to them as if some sort of appendage. However, does this mean that preclusion of positive rights occurs when we employ positive rights? It seems to me that insofar as our studies to date, that this does occur. Suppose the following. I have some disorder. I need to see a doctor. In our society I have a positive right to healthcare, therefore, the doctor is subsidized by the State and must give me the attention I need. Now, a positive right means I have access to a good or service, in this case healthcare. However, this right to healthcare necessarily requires that the doctor’s rights be restricted. Therefore, negative rights appear to be the prevailing form of rights. It seems one may have negative rights without having positive rights but may not have positive rights w...
