According to Locke the initial segment of the theory of natural rights comprises of fundamental rights which are derived from the law of nature and includes such things as life, freedom and property. Further continuing his theory he argues that in the state of nature every individual has equal liberty. No one by nature is answerable to anyone, and have the right to do whatever they want and as they like. But as every individual is only concerned about their own interests and no one really pays attention to any claims of the others and also to avoid any sort of conflicts, people pool their natural powers and together they uphold each others rights and establish a political community and move from the condition of nature to civil society. The formed government is build up by the consent of people and the job of it is to maintain, protect and enforce the rights only and not violate any individual’s rights.
Further ahead thinkers such as Burke argue that the rights are not natural but they are the result of customs and traditions. Other thinkers; Marx and Mill also challenged the notion of natural rights in various ways. Marx argues that the idea of normal rights controlled by all men was an ideological device to disguise the ruling class interests as widespread intrigue. It made the dream of fairness between people by building up formal equal rights and clouding the significance of social and economic disparities outside the political and legitimate circle. Later, the chapter talks about basic human rights. Human rights are essential for veery individual and it’s their natural right to have rights. Such rights include the right to life, freedom of religion and speech, right to liberty as well as property, the absolute right to not be tortured in any way and etc.
Few thinkers categorise these rights as the traditional negative rights which give rise to civil and political liberties and they claim that these traditional a civil and political rights are impose negative duties on individuals and the state to refrain from interfering with the rights of others. The social and economic rights directed towards providing minimum standards of living for each person assert claims on the fulfilment of basic human needs and these correlate with the positive duties to provide for basic needs. But it has been frequently questioned with respect to whether social and economics rights can be appropriately viewed as human rights or whether they are essentially desirable standards. In the twentieth century however liberals dropped the natural law framework and instead adopted a Kantian justification of human rights which was that the human beings themselves provide a basis for the sets of rights as human rights. It an individual himself who comes up with the human rights, not the state, the nature, no one. Rawls then states that rights to equal freedom are the means by which diverse individuals can pursue their own good in their own way. Be that as it may, regardless of whether civil and political/or social and economic rights can be advocated on these grounds mirrors the contrasts amongst negative and positive conceptions of freedom.
In this manner no doubt defending financial rights as human rights relies upon the legitimacy of the claim that people have principal fundamental and general needs as prerequisites for activity and upon contentions which bolster what these necessities are. Be that as it may, regardless of whether the individuals who contradict financial rights acknowledged these contentions, their reactions about the status of positive rights wolf still should be tended to. In the midst of the argument between positive and negative rights the question occurs what are these rights? Positive rights fundamentally are that it require others to provide you with services.
However a negative right, on the other hand, requires others to restrain from interfering with you actions. But the opponents of positive rights starts from whether these rights can be enforced or cannot be enforced. Similarly, negative rights have costless obligations which are constantly fit for being implemented and in view of this they are absolute and widespread but positive rights are most certainly not. These are views by Kant who further states that “the individuals who require polite rights to resources if they are to be treated as ends-in-themselves are not individuals of liberal theory.”