But that doesn't imply the existence of some amorphous moral agent called society, for which the state can bill us to pay for entitlements. Our social nature is thus perfectly compatible with the idea that individuals are autonomous beings who should have the freedom and responsibility to shape their own lives. He provides, however, a distinctive account of the communitarian emphasis on balancing rights and responsibilities, which, he argues, is really a sign that welfare rights are not basic human rights on a par with rights to life, liberty, and property. The problem is not just that welfare rights as a category conflict with negative rights, since the former require unchosen positive obligations, that when enforced, deprive others of liberty and property. The deeper problem is that welfare rights are in conflict with one another .
Welfare rights are open-ended.
Rights to housing, food, shelter, and medical care cannot, in the real world, meet all of people's needs for these goods. The state must adjudicate these various conflicts and pick and choose. In so doing, welfare rights become a right to whatever welfare goods the government chooses to provide. The original conception is that a right protects an individual against encroachment and oppression by society. A right is not a privilege that depends on the will of others but a claim that they are obliged to respect.