I like to mix a deontological Kantian natural rights view of duty that leads to a respect of negative liberty and negative rights with a consequentialist utilitarian view of acts within that previous framework that maximize good outcomes without contradicting duty of negative liberty and rights. Respecting negative liberty and rights as well as not acting in a contradictory way is a perfect duty. Maximizing good outcomes is an imperfect duty. Positive liberty and rights are results of caring about inperfect duty, but using means that contradict perfect duty. I could go on and on about the philosophical basis of being a BHL and how it embraces the categorical imperative in a unique way that while not consequentialist and utilitarians does take the air out of them by saying following your duty leads to good results. This ends the means versus ends debate in that use only use NAP approved means, but that opens a whole lots of various non-aggressive means to improve the world like charity as a good example.