When we say that something is a "human right," what we mean is that armed gunmen in special uniforms (police) should be sent to attack anyone who won't work in order to create those rights--meals, roads, centers for diversity policy--for others. And if such a person should attempt to defend herself, the police would kill her in response. That's why this is such a serious issue. It's life or death. It's not just a question of whether or not the magical government can make special treats appear. Only with immense gravity and humility should we approach the question of what "benefits" to which we can expect to be entitled.
Here's a little sequence of questions we should run through whenever we want to do something--provide a benefit--via a government:
(1) Do you feel that this benefit is a human right, so sacrosanct that it must be compelled, rather than allowed to come about, or not come about, naturally?
(2) If your answer to question (1) was a "yes," are you willing to accept the use of deadly force--killing people on your behalf--against those who refuse to contribute to the provision of that benefit?
(3) If your answer to both questions (1) and (2) were "yes," how many people would have to resist and be killed before you determined that the costs of considering the benefit to be a human right were "too high"? What about if twenty-three libertarian militia members refuse to pay, and get taken out by a SWAT team? Okay, how about 55 libertarian militia members, along with 82 children and elderly family members? Still worth it? Okay, how about two thousand farmers and their extended families? Still? How about a chain of Pacific islands and their tens of thousands of formerly-autonomous peoples? Still?
(4) If your answer to both questions (1) and (2) were "yes," how many people would have to lead miserable, powerless lives slaving for a system that they hated, and resenting every instant of forced labor, before you determined that the costs were too high? Or, are you indifferent to the possible non-mortal costs because the benefits of the "human right: are so high that it outweighs any number of destroyed lives?
(5) Morally, whom do you feel is the better, stronger, more valuable human being: (A) the person who disagrees with your assessment of what is a "human right," and who nobly and publicly defends the imposition upon her labor (by defending herself and her labor from your police forces), or (B) the person who disagrees with your assessment of what is a "human right," and who quietly slaves away her life to support your values, while loathing you in private and being terrified of ever resisting your government kill-teams?
(6) If your answer to question (2) was "yes," are you willing to join a police force, put on body armor, and raid the homes of, and potentially kill, or be killed by, idiots who think they are defending their freedom by refusing to work to pay taxes to support your "human right"? If so, how many times would you be willing to be shot yourself by the resistance, or how many people would you be willing to kill by your own hands and directly in front of your own eyes, before you reconsidered whether the benefit from (1) was worth being considered a "human right"? If not so, but you're willing to accept the benefits of others doing the killing and dying for you, what does that say about you personally, and about how much you really value the "human right"?
(7) If people don't openly resist slaving (working unwillingly) to provide for the benefit, but they make up for the perceived lack of reimbursement using alternative methods, are you willing to accept the strong likelihood that the side effects of these unwritten alternative methods are, in fact, costs of the "human right"?
(8) Some of the methods people might use to make up for being enslaved to provide for the benefit include: financial fraud and theft by subterfuge; theft by violence or murder; the development of underground economies; the development of brutal enforcement methods for underground economies; tax cheating; the investigation of tax cheating; the employment of chemicals and risky behavior to distract from injustice; escape by suicide; escape by nihilistic parasitism; and, deaths and losses and pain caused as a result of all of the aforementioned side effects. Do you see these results occurring in response to the enforcement of standards which buttress your desired "human right," or do these results never occur in your society? If they do occur, is your human right worth all these occurrences, in addition to the normal costs of mortal enforcement by police?