As libertarians, we agree that rights only exist in a negative context. However, most definitions of negative right seem to be inaccurate.
Like for example on Wiki article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#Criticisms
>Negative and positive rights are rights that respectively oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
>Presumably, if a person has positive rights it implies that other people have positive duties (to take certain actions); whereas negative rights imply that others have negative duties (to avoid certain other actions).
>negative duties
What the hell is a "negative duty", negative implies absence by definition. How can you have an absent obligation, that's no different than just saying "you have an non-existent obligation". Which makes no sense.
Furthermore, duties are positive acts by definition. You can't have a "negative action", that doesn't exist. "Negative duty" is an oxymoron
This is how I would define Negative Rights: "the ability to do an act, insofar as it doesn't pose an obligation to someone else"
Negative Rights are nothing more than claims of personal autonomy, they're inactive and impose nothing on anyone. You're not obligated to respect my negative rights, however, if you do violate them it's unjustified. By that I mean, I would claim that you were never in your jurisdiction to cross such a line to begin with. Obligation implies possibility [Check out side note], specifically the possibility to disobey such an authority. Like, you wouldn't tell an apple it has the obligation to be a fruit, or tell a human they have the obligation to grow hair out of his head. The fact being no one has the "right" to violate my negative rights, because they had no authority to do so. When I talk about negative rights, im not describing a obligation, but a lack of authority.
[Side note] Obligation implies Ought, Ought implies Can, and Can implies possibility.