This (relatively new) idea that by marking some things as "human rights", things that have a substantial cost to create, that they can then be stolen without re

This (relatively new) idea that by marking some things as "human rights", things that have a substantial cost to create, that they can then be stolen without regard to any rules tends to not end well for anyone in society. I honestly hate the idea of proclaiming things like food, health care, housing, education, etc. as "human rights", because they are very, very different from what has been historically thought of as human rights (things like freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc.). Primarily, of course, is that these newer "rights" are really goods and services that you would like everyone to have access to. And that may be fine (I personally tend to agree), but I would still argue that they are not anything at all like the rights people should have just for existing. I can certainly believe there should be "guaranteed social services", but these aren't "human rights". The main difference, of course, is that somebody has to expend their own personal time and energy to acquire these goods. Houses don't just sprout up out of nowhere, and they certainly don't maintain themselves. It's fine to argue that society should do much more to provide housing options to all citizens, but that's very different from saying "I should be able to move into any house where people aren't currently living because I can break the lock."