(Click here to continue on the main path)

Before we leave behind moral rights in general and move on to property rights in particular, I want to go back to a distinction that I made a while back.

I distinguished non-interference rights from welfare rights. The basic idea was that if a person has a non-interference right to do X, then certain parties (the government, for example) have no right to interfere with that person doing X. We could say that those parties have a duty not to interfere with that person doing X. For example, if John has a right with respect to the government to go to California, then the government has a duty not to interfere with John's going to California.

Notice that a non-interference right does not guarantee that John has the resources required to go to California. John may be flat broke and have no way to get to California. That's a separate issue.

Welfare rights, on the other hand, are usually rights to goods or services. We might say that a person has a welfare right to basic medical care or to housing. A welfare right goes beyond non-interference and requires someone or some institution to provide something for the person with the right.

As you might guess, non-interference rights are far less controvesial in the United States than welfare rights.

All of you have expressed some general view on rights. I have asked Ayesha to talk with each of you and get some idea of your views on welfare rights.