Human Rights are Innate to Mankind

[Abdabs]

Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should that doctor heal you?-Yes of course
Ask the dying: Should your relatives and community bury you?-That is my wish.

All of us expect our fellow human beings to help us when we are vulnerable. Whether you are a Anarcho-capitalist or not.
Human Rights are a reflection of our innate human need to be part of society. Codified Human Rights are a reflection of this need.

Human Right are innate to mankind.

[ff42]

Are you willing to initiate violence against the rich man, the doctor, relatives or the community to accomplish this? 

You might want to read up on 'rights'.  You are asserting privileges, not rights.
The right to life means that nobody should take it, not that others must provide it.

[Abdabs]

What are Human Rights?:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4

The problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IKqAtJiZUY

Gaining rights through violence is unexceptable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KneS7UipUNQ

Gaining Rights peacefully:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZgSK9yIbk

[MAM]

I believe Life is Sacred that doesn't mean it is objectively and it doesn't mean that life is a right objectively. Rights are intellectual, they are subjective.

[macsnafu]

Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should that doctor heal you?-Yes of course
Ask the dying: Should your relatives and community bury you?-That is my wish.

All of us expect our fellow human beings to help us when we are vulnerable. Whether you are a Anarcho-capitalist or not.
Human Rights are a reflection of our innate human need to be part of society. Codified Human Rights are a reflection of this need.

Human Right are innate to mankind.

I'd say you're just pointing out obvious biases.  Human rights are not based on needs or material goods and services that we expect other people to provide to us.  Rights are concepts about what we expect we should be free to act or do, and the only thing we need from other people is a recognition of our rights, and ask that they do not violate our rights.

How one should respond if/when rights are violated is the purpose of law and a legal system.

If we force a doctor to take care of a sick man, we are violating the doctor's rights.  If he's not willing to voluntarily help sick people, then he's not much of a doctor.  But even if he is, he still has expenses.  Medicine and medical procedures cost money, i.e. take resources to provide.  A doctor can sit at your bedside and try to comfort you, but if he can't give you medicine or operate on you when you need it, because the resources aren't available, he can't help you very much.

And that's just the doctor.  There are similar problems with forcing people to 'help' the poor.  Even burying a person takes a certain amount of resources, although it's not nearly as expensive or difficult as the other two.

[Abdabs]

I believe Life is Sacred that doesn't mean it is objectively and it doesn't mean that life is a right objectively. Rights are intellectual, they are subjective.

I totally understand where you are coming from. Perhaps your have been reading Max Stirner or other nihilistic authors? From this perspective the sacredness of life and your belief in it can be subjective. I've been reading Stirner since 2012; at the moment I'm reading the Nihilistic Egoist: Max Stirner by Paterson.
I have to say this concept of subjective values has given me the most problems. All I have to say that this time is that I actively trying to ditch that idea. Mainly because it feels absurd. Yet, if there is no God it may be true - my mind has hit a brick wall. Now I want to read Marx critique of Stirner in The German ideology.

But yes I get what your saying. It doesn't make it palatable though and I am unable to accept it at this moment based on my ongoing investigation.

[Abdabs]

Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should that doctor heal you?-Yes of course
Ask the dying: Should your relatives and community bury you?-That is my wish.

All of us expect our fellow human beings to help us when we are vulnerable. Whether you are a Anarcho-capitalist or not.
Human Rights are a reflection of our innate human need to be part of society. Codified Human Rights are a reflection of this need.

Human Right are innate to mankind.

I'd say you're just pointing out obvious biases.  Human rights are not based on needs or material goods and services that we expect other people to provide to us.  Rights are concepts about what we expect we should be free to act or do, and the only thing we need from other people is a recognition of our rights, and ask that they do not violate our rights.

How one should respond if/when rights are violated is the purpose of law and a legal system.

If we force a doctor to take care of a sick man, we are violating the doctor's rights.  If he's not willing to voluntarily help sick people, then he's not much of a doctor.  But even if he is, he still has expenses.  Medicine and medical procedures cost money, i.e. take resources to provide.  A doctor can sit at your bedside and try to comfort you, but if he can't give you medicine or operate on you when you need it, because the resources aren't available, he can't help you very much.

And that's just the doctor.  There are similar problems with forcing people to 'help' the poor.  Even burying a person takes a certain amount of resources, although it's not nearly as expensive or difficult as the other two.

What you seem to be saying is that no one has an economic right. Like-I don't have a right to say to a person: feed me I'm hungry and if you don't do your "duty" you are evil. Also, you seem to say that people have rights under law - I have no problem with that.

I said: Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should ...

But I see the point that my need and perceived right is subjective unless God is in the question.

I definitely don't want to be robbed by the needy; but I personally feel it is in my interest to give voluntarily.

Should then a government tax me - by force - to feed the hungry? It's an Interesting question.

[macsnafu]

What you seem to be saying is that no one has an economic right. Like-I don't have a right to say to a person: feed me I'm hungry and if you don't do your "duty" you are evil. Also, you seem to say that people have rights under law - I have no problem with that.

I said: Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should ...

But I see the point that my need and perceived right is subjective unless God is in the question.

I definitely don't want to be robbed by the needy; but I personally feel it is in my interest to give voluntarily.

Should then a government tax me - by force - to feed the hungry? It's an Interesting question.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is the distinction between civil society and political society.  If you call something a right, then you are essentially calling for a legal system to coercively enforce that right.  If a person refuses to help a needy person, then we have every right to consider him a mean or cruel person, unsympathetic with his fellow man, and we can choose to persuade him to change his ways by noncoercive means like shunning or ostracism, choosing not to associate or do business with him.  Let him struggle with his conscience.

If, however, we decide that he must be forced to help other people, we open an entirely different can of worms.  Who decides who is worthy of help, and how much help? Who decides when someone has too much or too little of something ?  How do they decide, and based on what standard or viewpoint?  Political decision-making of this kind, even if it's democratic, is still fraught with the risks of arbitrariness, tyranny and unintended consequences, and lacks good economic feedback or incentives for efficiently managing resources.