In goalkeeper cases, our assignment of a role-based desire results from our understanding of the role bearer`s responsibilities. These are assignments of wishes derived from positions or jobs, or what I will call assignments of wishes derived from duties to potential rights holders.25 Those who are in a system of standards understand its positions and therefore understand what those in its positions are obliged to do. Above, we have seen some assignments of desires derived from duty based on the principle that a role bearer wants to do his job to fulfill his responsibilities. A journalist wants to break down the story, a parent wants to do their best for their child – so a journalist wants their notes to be private, and a parent wants to receive child support. In such analyses, the desire of the Ras for the fulfillment of D`s duty stems from a more fundamental desire: that he be able to successfully fulfill his own duties. Here, the analysis reveals another vestige of history; This time, these rights allowed role holders to do their job. The constitutional path and the normative path of the child towards the attribution of desire involve risks. If we define a role with integrated desires, as Rawls does with the role of the citizen, then we can make sure that our theory contains exactly the rights we want. However, we may still be uncertain about our rights because we may not realize that we see ourselves as the kind of creatures that are portrayed. Rawlsian citizens may have certain rights, but we may not be sure whether we consider ourselves Rawlsian citizens. If we assign desire to the members of the role with a friendly standard («The citizen speaks on matters of the public moment»), we can see that others in our society do not share our view that this friendly standard is just or important. These other persons cannot therefore agree with us as to whether the corresponding rights exist or have weight. Attempting to file a claim in which there is no claim will result in the dismissal of that action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to disclose a claim.
As in Ashcroft v. IQBAL and Bell Atlantic v. Second, a claim must be prima facie plausible and demonstrate more than the mere possibility that the defendant may survive an application for rejection referred to in Article 12(b)(6). One way to assign role-based requests after the service outage is simply to define them. This is what Rawls does in «Fundamental Freedoms and Their Priority».36 Here, Rawls specifies a sophisticated conception of the citizen that focuses on the fundamental desires to pursue an idea of the good and to participate in an equitable system of social cooperation. Rawls, by definition, integrates these two fundamental desires into its citizens, so to speak. Rawls then explains in detail why citizens who are understood as citizens with these fundamental desires should be granted fundamental rights that protect speech and conscience, for example. Because Rawls defines his idea of the citizen with certain wishes, «citizens» necessarily want true for all cases, and these detectable attributions of wishes then support the attribution of rights such as freedom of expression. The main difference with the two traditional theories of rights is that the new analysis focuses on friendly desires.
Since «desire» is in the same conceptual space as «will» and «interest,» the theory of friendly desire overlaps in many places with theories of will and interest. But the theory of friendly desire is not a mixture of the other two.49 On the contrary, the concept of «desire» is at the center of the right of claim, around which «will» and «interest» revolve. Players` rights in sport and gambling are also instructively difficult for the theory of will. Consider, for example, a claim for rights to the official rules of football, Laws of the Game:2 Some of our roles («Citizens of Michigan») that we were born with but can give up. Most of our important roles («Hemann», «Employee», «Owner») can be seized and terminated at will. The rights of many roles («accused») can be waived. For most roles, the owner can revoke their rights or the role itself can be terminated. Two characteristics of a system of standards serve to explain eligibility rights in this analysis. The first is that those who are part of the system accept instructions that combine two types of role holders with an enforceable obligation.
But this is not enough: many of these statements connect role holders where no claims could be at stake (remember the firing squad and the criminal capital). The second feature is the assignment of a role-based wish. In this analysis of the right to claim, the orientation of the duty of a role bearer indicates the attraction of the desired state of another role bearer. Let`s take a first look at how we assign role-based desires, as this attribution is central in theory. 48Simply could be considered as another criterion for the favour of a theory; The theory of friendly desire is at least as simple as traditional analyses of rights. Legal claims are governed by the principles of legal force and therefore a party may not be able to assert an otherwise valid claim in court due to the exclusion of claims. A party shall be prevented from bringing claims in a new action which has already been decided on the merits in an earlier case, as well as from any binding counterclaim which it may have brought but did not bring at that earlier hearing. There are theories of rights that go beyond the two traditional theories, such as the theory of demand developed by Feinberg, Darwall, and Skorupski (see Joel Feinberg, Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980]; Stephen Darwall, The Second-Person Standpoint [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006]; John Skorupski, The Field of Reasons [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010]).
Henry Richardson, in «Directing Rights: A Liability Theory» (unpublished article, Georgetown University, 2012), presents a different analysis of what a right to be tried means.