But, again, in the end it's "I think...". If I think that all people have a right to freedom and the other guy thinks that black people are inferior and should be subjugated and so white people have the right to do so, who's right and how do you determine that? I think we're circling back to morality...so-called 'rights' are nothing more than moral principles, and morality is subjective. So is the determination of what rights people have or should have.
As for what you call 'emergent propert[ies]' - I have a right to sex? Would you tell all the women who, in my 50 years, have completely failed to have sex with me? And I have a right to not be hungry? Who do I demand to supply me with the food I don't have because I'm too lazy to grow my own?
I would definitely reject any claim that any person has a right to anything that demands any kind of action from another person. That's why I completely reject claims like "Medical care is a human right" and even "Good internet access is a human right". But when I say that they are nonsense - who's to say that I'm right? Maybe people should have a right to some things even if it needs action from others. How do you determine?