[derelicta]

Clearly letting poor folks die is the most moral option.

If positive rights make you so uncomfortable, I'll let you know they are very much widespread in today's constitutions. My canton's has many economic rights enumerated, including the right to a proper shelter. And I don't hold it for a nasty totalitarian dictatorship (yet?)

[pfannkuchen]

A government constitution should be designed to be robust. It should be assumed that no rights will be removed under any possible circumstances.

The inclusion of positive rights simply reduces the space of possible circumstances the government can traverse without removing rights, and depending on what sort of positive right we are taking about it does so drastically. Giving the government the ability to remove rights is dangerous for obvious reasons (they aren’t really rights at that point, are they).

If the medical system is ever mismanaged to the point of insolvency, should the government have the ability to violate a constitutional right to get things back in order? If they are allowed to violate that right, presumably they are able to violate other “rights” in the same class depending on the circumstances as well.

No one is saying constitutions with positive rights are totalitarian. I am just saying that they are fragile and should be avoided for that reason.

If what you want is a government health care system that can be modified or canceled based on circumstances, then that’s fine, but you can’t call it a “right” since you aren’t treating it as one.

[derelicta]

"If the medical system is ever mismanaged to the point of insolvency, should the government have the ability to violate a constitutional right to get things back in order? If they are allowed to violate that right, presumably they are able to violate other “rights” in the same class depending on the circumstances as well."

Well yes?

Some rights may be absolute. Some others may be limited. Things are rarely absolute. Democracies are more than their respective constitution. They also rely on their political culture and how healthy it is. Even if your constitutional norms are supposedely "weak", does it matter in the end? It's not a bench of judges who are gonna protect your rights, but citizens as a whole.

That's why this whole argument that positive rights being displayed as "flaws" doesn't make much sense to me. And why guaranteeing access to proper healthcare sounds to me like a well balanced risk.

What is more likely? Than the State will turn you into a slave through this positive right to healthcare, or that you will end up dead by lack of said guaranteed access to healthcare ?

[mcv]

> No one is saying constitutions with positive rights are totalitarian. I am just saying that they are fragile and should be avoided for that reason.

You may say that, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. If we look at how this works out in practice, are constitution with positive rights really more fragile? There's nothing fragile about Switzerland, for example; that's probably one of the most stable countries in the world. The US, on the other hand, seems to be constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and/or authoritarianism. Government institutions frequently seem to violate the law with impunity, and now Trump, a major presidential candidate, seems to want to get rid of the constitution.

Political culture is probably much more important than the distinction between positive and negative rights, and I don't think a culture of hurting people or letting people suffer, is good for any country.