Spot on, and that has to be the line by which every “right” is tested. Things like freedom of expression, right to a fair trial, freedom of assembly, conscience etc. are areas in which nobody really has to provide you with anything (save for the fair trial, but it’s still not really unreasonably extracting the labour of others), but are guarantees by the state that they won’t stop you exercising such rights. Once you get into things like housing, healthcare, even education, where somebody else’s labour is required to afford you your “rights” what you’ve really got are entitlements. This is an important distinction. Entitlements that exist today can generally be rescinded tomorrow either if the political will exists to do so, or if there’s just no way to pay for your entitlements. But rights are supposed to be sacrosanct and above politics or matters of state, which is why we describe ours as bestowed by the Most Holy Trinity, and the Americans describe them as inalienable - this illustrates that such rights are not subject to legislative amendment or removal. (The American choice of words in this regard is far superior, our merry band of secularists want to remove references to God and the Trinity from our constitution cos they’re too fucking short sighted to understand the practical impacts of such a move).