Positive rights
A discussion of positive rights essentially boils down to one's definition of liberty. One school of thought would have it that true liberty is to be found when the government stays out of the economic sphere altogether, another would have it that this leads to tyranny and oppression at the hands of the private individuals with all the resources. People who are adherents of the latter believe that the government should infringe on civil and social liberty for the good of "the community". In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau puts forward the idea of "self-rule", or the belief that true freedom is to be found by subordinating oneself to the community and accepting its will as your own. He holds that the will of the community, or the general will, is inalienable, indivisable, and infallible. Under The Social Contract, all individuals have positive freedom - that is, they have a right to a share of "the community"'s economic resources. I quote from The Social Contract:
"Every member of the community at the moment of its formation gives himself up to it, just as he actually is, himself and all his powers, of which the property that he possesses forms part." (emphasis mine)
Rousseau holds that all property belongs ultimately to the state, and he goes on to explain that the state's ultimate ownership makes it more secure and irrevocable, "at least in respect to foreigners". Rousseau believes that the state derives its right to property from the "right of first ownership" of individuals. Every man has a right to as much as he needs to subsist, but not the rest. This is why Rousseau believes a civil society should respect the right of first occupancy insofar as it applies to what a man needs for his basic survival, but not beyond this. To have a right to economic resources a man must use them to the fullest of his ability and hence benefit himself, and society, fully. As disposers of the public property, their right to it ends if they abuse it. But whilst they do, society, by its ultimate ownership, is the legitimising stamp on their ownership, protecting it from the usurpations of foreigners with all its might and guaranteeing respect from others within the society.
Although Rousseau doesn't address issues such as taxation or attainder1, it seems certain he was in favour of them where the good of "the community" at stake. He says directly -
"the right which every individual has over his own property is always subordinate to the right which the community has over all; otherwise there would be no stability in the social union, and no real force in the exercise of sovereignity"
It is Rousseau's defence of an absolute state which has led to The Social Contract been described as a "blueprint for totalitarianism". Opponents of positive rights believe that their imposition by a powerful state is a recipe for the death of negative rights and unhappiness for all. How, they ask, can an individual have any "rights" when he may be demanded to surrender himself and his property to others at any time? Central to the opposition to positive freedom by Ayn Rand is the very dismissal of the idea of "the community". Rand believes that "the community" doesn't exist, that what it in reality means is the bickering and fighting of various pressure groups over the resources of others. In the lecture The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus, Rand argued that the "anti-ideology" (its an anti-ideology because government action isn't guided by a set of ideological principles, but by the application of "pull" by pressure groups) of a mixed economy:
"A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another's expense by an act of government - i.e., by force."
Rand argued that a mixed economy is based on compromise between the interests of all parties, and therefore some groups will triumph and some fail according to the degree with which they can apply "political pull". She thought the only way to maintain everyone's rights inviolate was not to allow the economic sphere to be legislated by the government at all. This wasn't for the "common good", it was because certain rights in her opinion were inalienable. In Rand's opinion it was never right to coerce a man to do anything, which obviously includes confiscating his private property. The so-called "positive rights" such as the "right to a job", the "right to a house", in fact the right to any economic resources, require that these resources be paid for by someone else (ie. through redistributive taxation). And extorting wealth from someone, Rand said, is wrong. If someone wanted a house, or a job, or medical care, they'd have to earn it. So economics, says Rand, isn't the business of the government. The government is there to protect negative rights, and nothing else.
Rand was not entirely correct in saying there is no dominant trend in today's society: the trend is towards compromise, towards a mixed economy where economic freedom rights are not guaranteed. The lack of a dominant guiding philosophy in government and the "rule by consensus" nature of today's government means that governments will continue to legislate the economic sphere and provide positive rights to people by legally removing economic resources from richer elements. Rousseau's radical call for egalitarianism is not likely to be adhered to either (Rousseau was an inspiration for Karl Marx, and Marxism-Leninism at least has failed). The fact is, in today's societies, such black and white discussions of morality are not voiced, they are sacrificed on the altar of the cult of compromise.
1. An "Act of Attainder" was an act by which the sovereign could seize the property of another and bring it within the possession of the Crown. In the feudal system the Monarchy was the ultimate landowner and private property existed only by a right derived from it.
Sources
Rand, Ayn et al. Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal: Signet, 1967.
Rand, Ayn et al. The Virtue of Selfishness: Signet, 1964.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: Wordsworth Classics, 1998.