(Click here to continue on the main path)

I've talked with everyone and I think I can summarize what they think about non-interference rights versus welfare rights. Here goes:

• I'll start with myself. As a Catholic, I believe that God created the world for the good of all humankind. I've said this before. Our rights have to be derived from that premise. Every single person has a right to the basic benefits that flow from the common use of God's creation. The American Catholic bishops made this clear when they declared that "a number of human rights also concern human welfare and are of a specifically economic nature. First among these are the rights to life, food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and basic education." [Economic Justice for All, Section 80] Of course, if someone is capable of working, then that person is obliged to work to transform natural resources into those things that people can use for their survival and comfort.
  
  
• Dee is 100% behind a set of non-interference rights, including rights to religious belief, religious practice, movement, association, speech, and self-defense. She is very skeptical about natural or statutory welfare rights. From her point of view, as a libertarian, a welfare right to X is simply a way to make someone else work to provide you with X. In other words, welfare rights involve coercion and exploitation.
  
  
• John and Vera are uncertain about natural welfare rights, but they believe strongly that there are good reasons for adopting a set of statutory welfare rights that would provide for the basic needs of every citizen. They both believe that if some persons take exclusive ownership of natural resources, they must provide some sort of compensation to those who lose access to those resources. That obligation to compensate is built into the fundamental justification of exclusive ownership. It could take the form of a guaranteed income; or it might take the form of a guarantee that basic needs be met. In other words, welfare rights can be justified as a form of compensation for strong property rights in natural resources.
  
  
• Fred is much more skeptical about natural welfare rights or statutory welfare rights. He agrees that in an ideal world, everyone's basic needs would be met. But he also believes in limited government and doesn't want to see a large, ever-expanding welfare state. On balance, he believes that government should only step in to help people in extreme circumstances. Other than that, he would encourage private charity to help those who cannot help themselves.