Freedoms vs opportunities

Reagan's passing has prompted a rash of posts attempting to clarify the distinction between what Stephen Bainbridge calls negative and positive rights:

Reagan was a proponent of negative rights; most notably, Reagan espoused the right to be left alone. In contrast, what Saletan calls liberty is really a set of positive rights -- a right to an education, a job, etc....

But positive and negative rights aren't likely to become terms of choice in popular discourse anytime soon, and will likely lead to as much confusion as William Saletan's undifferentiated use of "liberty" for both concepts. Which is why Jane Galt terms them "liberty" and "security", noting:

Security is also valuable and good, but it is not the same thing as liberty.

Plaudits to her for defending precision in speech, without which meaningful debate becomes impossible. But since Saletan has already muddied the meaning of "liberty" in this particular exchange, why not use "freedom" instead? Its range of meanings in common parlance runs more towards being left alone than towards privileges or entitlements. And "security" is not entirely satisfactory for encompassing all those "positive rights" such as employment, safe streets, and education. Why not term them "opportunities" (or "entitlements", if you are feeling more libertarian, or simply "rights" if you are feeling less so)?

Posted by David on June 8, 2004 11:12 AM