So I'm looking at all the rights that human rights organizations follow. I decided to try to sort them based on whether the right is a freedom of choice, which I see as a negative liberty, or a freedom of action, a positive one. I also write whether I think the right is based primarily around autonomy or serves a collective social function. I found that social functions tend to be more positive liberty based, that is, a freedom of action, and rights of autonomy tend to be more about negative liberty, a freedom of choice.

(Let me preface this with saying, this is just my best guess of each right's sorting)

Here are a list of the social rights that are also positive liberties:
right of Association
right of national sovereignty
right of egalitarian religion
right to free, visitation, and transport funded prison system
right to right to dignified life
right to transparency in government
right to nonpartisan investigation into corruption
right to equal pay
right to be adopted
right to a bed to sleep on
right to social security
right to equality for women
right to enact a sin tax
right of speech
right to vote (especially for women and minorities)

Here are a list of autonomy rights that are also negative liberties:
right to public education (to at least 17)
Reproductive rights
right to speedy trial
right to fair and equal representation
right to weapons (outside of prisons)
right of democratic control of media and arts
right to democratic allocation of natural resources (anti-feudalism)
right of conscientious objection
right to strike/slowdown with exception for health care workers, air-traffic control workers, telecommunication workers and possibly fuel workers?
Here are a list of social rights that are based off of negative liberty:
right of Assembly
right to fair use
right of marriage
right to access to healthy food
democratic control of police
right to public health care
right to psychological screening of judges
right to public judicial system

Here are a list of autonomous rights that are also positive liberties:
right of job satisfaction
right of personal sovereignty
right to see evidence against you
right to privacy
right to equality for disabled
right to ethnic equality

Do you think I have sorted any of them wrong? Which ones would you change?

What do you think of my theory?

I disagree. I prefer something a lot simpler and less cluttered with ideology:

Significantly, rights are the flip-side of obligations - one person's right is another's obligation

Take health care: Claiming a right to public health care means claiming a right to my property which contradicts my right to not have force initiated against my own property. Also, socialised health uncare simply does not work as has been proved in countries such as Britain, Canada and Australia, where I live.

Another way of thinking of it is in terms of positive and negative rights. Negative rights such as the right not to be interfered with do not require force to be initiated against anyone else, whereas positive rights means making a (positive) claim against someone else's property. As such, there are few justifications for positive rights, one being children expecting to be taken care of until they are adults. Note also that children do not have the liberty that adults have. Responsible adults are not entitled to make claims against other people's property.

I disagree. Negative rights are the same as positive rights in that they require something of others. (It took me a long time to come to view it this way.) If I have a right to privacy, for instance, that implies that you do NOT have a right to be curious.

It is much simpler just to recognize that rights are simply wishes. This does not mean that I don't believe that the world is a better place when we all act as if rights exist, it just means that we are believing in magic if we think they exist in reality.

- NonE

If I were to look in your window at night because I'm curious (especially as to what it is that is causing you and your girlfriend to make all those funny noises), that would probably be seen to be an intrusion on your "right to privacy" and get my ass thrown in jail.

To me, that implies that your 'right to privacy' impinges on my 'right' (or just my ability) to be curious.

Does that help?

- NonE

^Ignoring that in order to peek in my window, you would have to trespass on my property, let's say you were looking through binoculars from your window: Don't people who value their privacy use curtains?