A person is wronged when her rights are infringed, but when exactly are rights infringed? The most common account is choice-protecting and hold that rights are infringed when they are intruded upon without the rightholder consent. By contrast, a direct interest-protecting account holds that they are infringed when intruded upon against the rightholder’s interests. I will propose and partially defend a hybrid account that holds that whether rights (whatever their general content) are infringed depends, in a particular way, on (1) actual valid consent/dissent, (2) hypothetical consent/dissent, and (3) the impact on the rightholder’s interests.  

Read more (including the paper)