Abstract:
A common question that is explored in this article is: How should states blend concern for citizens’ needs, liberties, rights, and interests? While this is a question that all states must confront, those in developing countries often face particularly tough choices, given a context in which there is large-scale unfulfilled human needs and limited resources for satisfying many core demands that legitimate states have obligations to meet. In the first section, in response to comments from Alex Sager, I show that the same arguments that are used to justify jury service can apply to cases of limited compulsory service to meet basic human needs; the centrality of protecting core human interests, needs, and rights can ground both instances. In the second section, in response to worries raised by Lucas Stanczyk, we see how there are cases where attention to meeting needs should be prioritized over respecting certain liberties and that this position enjoys excellent liberal pedigree. In the third section, I consider Luara Ferracioli's proposal to shift responsibilities to recipient states and away from states of origin, and show why the alleged advantages in doing so do not play out. In the fourth section, I consider some of Ryan Pevnick's pragmatic fears and explain why I remain cautiously optimistic about the progressive potential of the core policy proposals defended in Debating Brain Drain.
