Talk of the marketplace of rights is rare, even jolting. It brings together two traditionally antagonistic perspectives: the laissez-faire, libertarian, free-market perspective with that rooted in the paternalistic, egalitarian, and in entitlement. In fact, separate talk by many from each camp, holding self-regardingly superior and preemptive beliefs, makes any merger conversation between rights and market advocates formidable. Consider the simple stories each side tells to show the obvious validity of its point of view. The market advocates suggest that we make choices – to attend college or to enlist in the military, to invest in bonds or to buy options, to purchase additional insurance or to add a deck, or to start a business or to take a job. Each decision has potential risks and rewards, but two things are true: at an individual level, choice and freedom are maximized, whereas at a global level, a high degree of rationality and prosperity is achieved. Collective or governmental decisions defeat that freedom and prosperity and ought to be kept to a minimum.

The rights story is equally compelling. We ought to respect individuals blessed with differing talents, inheritances, abilities, and luck. Those blind, born to great poverty, or subject to discrimination on the one hand or in need of clean air and water, ready medications, or a safe workplace on the other, might claim particular rights based on these circumstances.