This article seems quite unfair to the position, which it calls the "Brute Rights Assumption," that the "genealogy problem" isn't worth addressing. It does so by arguing against a weak Libertarian position. But that doesn't establish the claim that "genealogy problem" is important at all or is worth addressing as the first of the three problems. Instead, it seems to me that this "genealogy problem" is one of those things about which Wittgenstein famously said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Any attempted investigation of the actual nature or source of natural rights that tries to reduce them to language and rationality will inevitably cheapen them—and should be avoided.