This idea is weaker than the claim that they are necessarily linked to specific and closely correlated protective duties, but it is a sounder and more defensible notion. It seems to run up against the authority of Hobbes, one of the founders of rights theory, and even of Hohfeld himself. A second Wittgensteinian theme is that there is no more to the meaning of an expression than the use to which that expression can be put. However, these six data points combined support two constraints, the level of grain constraint and the ontology of meaning constraint. Neither Millianism nor Descriptivism satisfy either constraint.
Hybrid views fare no better.
This is surprising, for it is widely held that Millian, Descriptivist, or hybrid views can account for some of the six data points, if not all . While Etchemendy levels many objections, Bates picks out the most forceful one. It is that Tarski's account only gets the right extension because we accept the axiom of infinity in set theory. I reply by arguing that Bates and Etchemendy have misunderstood the nature of conceptual analysis. An accurate analysis is not supposed to provide some sort analytic or logical equivalent to the analysandum.