Economics is a fascinating topic. Survival, in the short term, is dependent on shelter, water, and food. If there is available arable land, one can build a shelter, dig a well, and grow some food; a completely self-contained economy where one's time and efforts are directly exchanged for the immediate value of survival.

This scenario may represent some fundamental assumption for human rights in some philosophies. The idea being, that what one can provide for oneself by themselves, should not be taken away by others. For example, here the right to free speech is not limited. Even death threats or incitements to panic or violence would hardly cause anyone an issue if the speaker was alone and nobody heard them. Personally I would call these things Rights, with a capital R.

In contrast, there is often discussion or mention of what may be called small r rights. These are things that one may not be able to provide for themselves in an isolated survival. For example, the small r right to healthcare. Modern healthcare involves value chains of both products and specialized labor. Thus, to some extent, a person must interact with other people in order to receive healthcare. Therefore, this right depends on the action of another person, as opposed to Rights which rely on the inaction, or lack of interaction with others. The crux of the issue being, if a healthcare provider does not desire to treat someone, do they have a big R right to use their time and life how they want to that supersedes someone's small r right to healthcare?

Put in another light, when someone's small r rights are violated, who do they sue? This assumes the presence of a legal system. If there was a right to food, and someone was hungry, who do they sue? The most practical answer would probably be whatever institution sponsoring the legal code that gave them the right to food, as opposed to an indidivudal farmer or grocer. Assumedly, this sponsor would then levy the food from the producer, and they will be compensated by the some tax on all of the individuals within the legal system. The point being, the right to food would be the fault of the society as a whole, rather than an individual. This may sound quite palatable to some.

But, to others, there is little fundamental difference between an individual at fault and the society made up of individuals. For example, in a society of 100 people where 1 sues for food, 99 people each paying 1/99 of the settlement seems like there are 99 small bits of big R rights being superseded to satisfy in-whole one small r right.