What about rights like the right to freedom from slavery or torture which, on the one hand, are about things not being done to you, but on the other may depend

What about rights like the right to freedom from slavery or torture which, on the one hand, are about things not being done to you, but on the other may depend on third parties (for instance a government) from preventing people from doing these things to you? The declaration on human rights is not really government-centric, so the US-style free speech comparison makes little sense. > what do they really mean? They're a yardstick to measure how well we as humanity, and, more specifically particular regions or systems, measure up to what we, as humanity, consider to be the things that every human should (expect to) have. (Sorry for the bombasity.) For instance, if we lived in a libertarian/anarchist utopia, with no government, it would still make sense to ask whether people's human rights were being met.