>
no such right exists; that would be like the right to rob with impunityNo, it's the same kind of thing as having your records "sealed", to not let a past deed haunt you.
Not even sure what kind of logic jumps one has to make to equate something like this to "robbing with inpunity". For starters the punishment to robbing isn't remembrance of your robbing, it's jail time or fine etc. And, fun fact, the aforementioned "records being sealed" can even be applied to someone who e.g. did a robbery or other crime as a juvenile.
Now, since a "right to be forgotten" does explicitly exist in EU and other jurisdictions, I'm not sure what denying its existance means.
If you mean "there's no such right" as a thing in itself, outside laws and treaties and jurisdictions, then the same is true for any right.
No right exists by itself, as if handed to us by nature, not even the right to not be murdered. All rights are based on people deciding some kind of assurances are good to have and putting them into laws and treaties and such.
And all rights are only granted and protected based on power relationships and agreement, not based on some (non-existent) natural truths existing independenty of them in the cosmos. We might call some "self-evident" and "natural" but those are just fancy words. In actual history almost all of our so-called "self-evident/natural" rights have been unrecognized (even in quite recent history), and societies considered this just fine. In fact in some cases, actually giving the rights would be considered the violation of the natural law.
>of course clever demagogues and rhetoricians can write such things into legislation
Demagogue is someone who "who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument". Rhetorician is a public speaker who is good in persuading people with words. Neither have much to do with such legislation being passed (nor was it the work of some demagogues).
It's simply about the internet making anything somebody does into a permanent record [1], and this being understood as not always necessarily being for the benefit of society.
E.g. what some edgy/troubled teenager wrote on his social media account in his teens shouldn't necessarily be part of his "permanent record" for employers and others to judge them by decades afterwards. And in the past, it wasn't, unless it made the press (and even then, it was easily lost due to it being in print and ephemeral), or was deemed necessary so by the state (e.g. to register as a sex offender). Just because technology now makes it being a permanent record trivial doesn't mean we should be OK with it. We should be masters of technology, not slaves to it.
[1] Doesn't matter if something like that could be accomplished in the past too - what matters is that it's far more prevalent, has several orders of magnitude more scale of the kind of stuff that can be kept, and is easier to achieve, and trivial to search with the advent of the internet. This changes the impact of this to society a lot.