Reply #37: in modern rights instruments

[iverglas]

(like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian constitution, and others modeled on it), there is a recognized right to security of the person.

This is the same kind of "negative" right as the right to life and liberty, the historic first generation of rights in the progression from liberté to égalité and some day fraternité (solidarity).

It means that the state may not deprive an individual of life, security of the person or liberty without the procedural guarantees imposed.

More broadly, however, modern societies understand these "rights" as values: things to be promoted and protected by the state, i.e. individuals' life, security of the person and liberty.

Certainly states have always done that by making criminal laws, prohibiting assault, for instance. And also by making regulatory laws, such as laws imposing speed limits, laws prohibiting unqualified persons from practising medicine, and so on: laws that regulate individual conduct with the aim of promoting public safety (among other things).

The state cannot be required to guarantee any outcome, obviously; an individual's right to safety/security doesn't mean a corresponding duty on the state to guarantee that safety/security. Just as the right to life doesn't place a duty on the state to supply free food and housing for life. But the state does have a responsibility, in our understanding of what the purpose of a state/government is, to take measures to protect individuals and the public against negative outcomes.