Followup

One quick comment about my last post. I think a useful distinction can be drawn between positive rights (the right to be provided something) and negative rights (the right not to be deprived of something). This is a way of understanding the difference between a dictator who burns all the books in his country and a benevolent leader who simply doesn't have the resources to achieve 100% literacy. I think though, tentatively at least, that all rights are essentially positive rights behind the veil of ignorance. This is to say that in the design of the social structure itself, pretty much everything is provided by (hypothetical) individuals from behind the veil of ignorance. It's not an exact parallel, but I think it explains why I don't find the positive/negative distinction compelling when it comes to Rawls.