See that's why there's a big difference in conceptualization. Texans would certainly not say you have a "right" to arbitrarily commit violence. They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you. In this case, the right is the freedom to not not go to prison after protecting your property.

In fact, a Texan may also believe that since you have no right to violence, it would be perfectly fine for a police officer to stop you from using deadly force, as long as that police officer doesn't use deadly force on you!

Thanks, but I guess I just don't understand how this concept - negative rights are things that the state shouldn't take away from you - fits the concept of a "negative" right given here [0]. Following that definition, negative rights require that some actions are not allowed - the government/state (i.e, society?) takes these actions away.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you. If someone violates the negative rights of others, they forfeit theirs.

for example, people have a "negative" right to be free of physical violence. If someone uses physical violence an another, that person forfeits their rights, and the state can use violence against them. It can also take away their freedom of movement and incarcerate them.

> The basic principle is that your negative rights are a prohibition of what others can do to you.

Agreed - rights that are guaranteed by prohibiting certain actions, i.e. you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is prohibited.

Compare with:

> They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you.

The formulation seems a little different: you have a right to $FOO, meaning that $BAR is allowed ("the state shouldn't take [$BAR] away from you").

The way it would fit:

You have a negative right to freedom from the state: the state can't lock you up without a good reason.

Also relevant, you have a negative right to your property: someone can't take your property from you.

Contrast with a postive-right versions of these two things, right to due process and right to property protection by the police.

I don't grok the real difference between the positive and negative rights example. Do these lead to different policy decisions? I'd like to know.

In the property case, my understanding is that people cannot take your property, this you are permitted to defend your property.

In the positive rights case, the state extends property protection via the law and police, thereby implicitly granting you property rights. This is a grant, and you are not allowed to defend your own property?

That's my rough reading of ops text.

> Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"?

If you down the rabbit hole far enough, rights do not come from anywhere other than the extent to which an opposing party is able to punish you. Aka, might makes right.

What's wrong with choosing rights democratically?

Minority rights.

You either believe in a democracy or you don’t. Minority rights have been pretty well protected through democratic decisions.

Minority rights are well-protected in America as a constitutional republic.

An actual direct democracy, like Switzerland, isn't as great as protecting minority rights. There's plenty of examples of democracies trampling minority rights, and there is a legitimate fear of tyrannical majority in most democracies.

America is quite unique in its system and how well it protects rights.

Sometimes, but not all times. It depends on what minority

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. And also to try and change the situation democratically.