I think Uncle summed up the problem with the United Nations perfectly:
The UN says internet access is a human right. Right to self-defense, nope. Right not to be raped, nope. But free ice cream, yup.
The United Nations is perfectly fine with saying things that must be provided to you by a third party are rights. This makes no sense because a right by definition is something that can’t be taken from you. People who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy believe in the natural right to self-ownership. This is because you own yourself and that ownership of yourself can not be taken away as you have free will even as a slave (you can attempt to escape for instance). In the United States the Constitution guarantees a set of rights but as they are rights for which the government is supposed to be prohibited from interfering with the government decided to go ahead and interfere with them. Either way a right is something that is exercisable withing interference.
The problem for many comes in when they claim something they can’t provide themselves is a right. For instance some people claim healthcare is a right but for that to be true access to healthcare can’t be interfered with. Those who support the idea of healthcare being a right demand government provided healthcare solutions because they hope it will remove any potential interference that could come between a person and their “right” to receiving healthcare. What these people don’t stop to realize is the fact that a right to healthcare also requires medical practitioners. Thus the only way to make healthcare a right is to force medial practitioners to provide healthcare which essentially makes those in the medical field slaves. If the government wishes to make healthcare a right they must force enough people to be doctors and then force those doctors to work on people.
This is the problem with the whole concept of positive rights, you must make slaves out of a portion of the population to guarantee those “rights.”