Rockwood alleges that doing so led directly and predictably to injury.A rights-based analysis would deliver differing opinions depending on the rights they enshrine. Someone emphasizing rights to life, health or responsible treatment might argue that Rockwood not only has a right to pursue a suit and receive compensation but also an obligation to do so. But many rights-based analyses such as market libertarians analyses would emphasize the rights of the company to provide the services they wish. Advocates like Milton Friedman, Nozick, and Murray Rothbard would argue that Dickinson had made a calculation, even if misguided or potentially immoral or callous, that they would not provide the services and goods they created with their own hard work in a particular fashion. This is their inviolable right, in this view, and thus they cannot be sued or brought to task legally in any fashion. Dickinson was satisfying their only obligation worth discussing: The obligation to their shareholders.Under this view, an individual has absolute control over their labor and property. Whatever they made under conditions of justice (e.g. no theft, fraud or embezzlement) is theirs. Dickinson had no responsibility to provide a different product. It is absurd to take them to court for not providing a product!