Rights be it positive or negative have to be weighed against each other. This is where societies tend to differ. Does your law side with the property owner or w

Rights be it positive or negative have to be weighed against each other. This is where societies tend to differ. Does your law side with the property owner or with the humanitarian rights of people who would need access to that property? Typically, because those creating the laws are property owners themselves the law makers side with the property owners. Now if you are lucky you live in a society where the law makers recognized the crisis needs to be addressed and they usually find a way of throwing money at the problem (if you are less lucky, they do it corruptly by supporting their own property or that of their pals). That means systemically we live in a society where those with power tend to accumulate more power, a phenomenom which leads to suffering and instability, which is why societies need certain guardrails against such accumulation of power (e.g. term limits, ethical frameworks, anti-corruption laws, taxation that doesn't tax poor people a bigger fraction of their money than rich people etc.) But on the topic of the conversation: yes, you can claim a right that is not universally agreed uppon. That doesn't make it so, but throughout every progressive movement there ever was, this was a strategy. E.g. women claiming that voting is a universal right (in a context where they are barred from doing precisely that) is not stupid, it is clever. By appealing to the universality of a right you are also including those who already excercise that right on your side. In the example of women protesting for the right to vote framing it as an universal right includes men as well, this way a women issue becomes one of universal rights and will be discussed differently.