Is the Proliferation of Rights a good thing or a bad thing?

In chapter seven Wellman begins to argue his opinion about the proliferation of both Legal and Moral Rights. Wellman argues on behalf of legal rights that, "it is a mistake to praise or condemn the proliferation of legal rights wholesale; one should assess the merits and defects of each new right individually" (pg 172). I personally agree with Wellman on this stance. I think that trying to assess the entire proliferation of rights as being either good or bad is not the right way of doing things.

One problem that struck me was the problem of language in the proliferation of rights. As is often the case when new rights are being argued, they are being argued not on the grounds of discovering Truth, but rather the arguers have an agenda that propels them to argue in a certain way. As Wellman says "Because there is no effective way and nonprejudicial way to prevent any public speaker from asserting any right that springs to her mind, what is needed is not an attempt to reduce the number or variety of asserted moral rights but an effort to greatly increase discussion within political discourse" (pg 178). In an ideal world the discussion of a new right would be unbiased from politics or whatever personal convictions one may have. However, we do not live in such a world and this problem of rights being established with bias troubles me. I wonder what others think about this problem and if there is another solution other than that which Wellman gives on page 181 "whether on balance it will be beneficial or harmful depends primarily upon whether or the public to whom it is addressed is politically engaged, informed, and critical".