Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably a case of negative rights versus positive rights https://alabamapolicy.org/research/understanding-the-differe...
That’s just the latest justification for the lack of critical thinking around what actually constitutes a right. Those “negative vs positive” rights people don’t seem to have any problem with the “right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one then one will be provided for you”. It’s always been an incredibly disingenuous argument.
I agree with you, and I think what takes it apart is starting to think about the fact that humans are social, it is not really possible to be fully human apart from a community. The idea of an independent individual unreliant on anyone else as a starting point, which I think is the basis of this "negative vs postive rights" framework, is a myth, is not how humans work. The questions are what kinds of communities we want, how we want to relate to each other -- not whether to.