 However, Nozick’s focus on rights having the role of protecting individuals from net losses being imposed upon them raised concerns for him about whether invocations of rights would deliver the strong anti-paternalism that he  favored.[13]  If rights are in themselves merely claims against having one’s utility or welfare on net lowered by certain interferences, then one will have no right against interferences that on net raise one’s utility or welfare. Arguments that “will prohibit sacrificing one person to benefit another” will not themselves deliver “a prohibition on paternalist aggression” (34). Rights against paternalist interventions that really do serve interests of the paternalized party must protect the choices of that party—even choices that will lower her utility or welfare.