Talk:Rights: Difference between revisions

::I can see where that technicality might be confusing to laypeople, but I'm not sure any alternate example can be any clearer, because in any case we want some example where, for some subject P, people somewhere are permitted both to P and not to P <small style="color:#999;">that is the question</small>, while people elsewhere are permitted to P but not to not P; and no matter what P is, that will mean that the latter group are obligated to P. --[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Addendum: It occurs to me that a difference between the Adrain & Clay example and the voting rights example is that the former speaks of claim rights while the latter speaks of liberty rights. The positive-negative distinction is ''usually'' (but not necessarily) brought up in context of claim rights, and I don't think an example in that context will have the same issue. Some kind of welfare issue would probably be the best-recognized example here; where in one jurisdiction people may not be deprivation of some good in their possession (a negative claim right), but are not entitled to the provision of it (a positive claim right), while in a different jurisdiction people are also entitled to the provision of it. --[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 03:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 

== Rights claimants (unborn/ fetuses) ==