(Return to main path )

Here's another problem for you, Dee. You think that Gewirth's argument provides a reasoned basis for libertarian rights. But maybe that's not true. Gewirth talked about rights to freedom and well-being. At times he emphasized rights to non-interference. But he also argued that at times the right to well-being implied a duty on the part of others to provide significant help to those who needed it.

Gewirth believed that there were times when individuals had a "strict duty" to supply food to those who were starving. He also believed that there were times when one nation had a strict duty to supply food to another nation whose people were starving.

My point is simply that Gewirth's argument may not support the libertarian position you accept. His student Roger Pilon knew that and argued that Gewirth had drifted from his earlier position in a dangerous direction that involved rights to "recipience." He believed that Gewirth was developing his ideas in a way that justified a "full-blown supportive state."

I think you had better look more carefully at both Gewirth's ideas and Pilon's criticisms. Gewirth may be arguing for the very thing you oppose.

[See Gewirth "Starvation and Human Rights" in Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. See also Pilon "Ordering Rights Consistently: or What We Do and Do Not Have Rights To" in the Georgia Law Review.]