One person's right is another obligation.
Whenever you declare a right for an individual, you are in fact declaring an obligation on others. This does not make it a bad thing, but those who declare such rights sometimes need reminding of the obligations they impose. A typical conversation goes:
R: Give me an example of a fundamental right.
L: I would say that everyone has the right to a flush toilet.
R: So if you have the money, you are obliged to buy and install one for me?
L: Well yes, if you can't afford it yourself.
R: So even if I am not prepared to work for it, I am still entitled to it?
L: Umm ..
R: And what if I deliberately smash it after it is installed - are you obliged to fix it for me?
L: No of course not.
R: Then I don't have a fundamental right to a flush toilet.
L: Umm ..
Typically they modify their statement to say that everyone has the right to the opportunity to work to buy a flush toilet. Then the argument revolves around what a fair rate of pay is - which is clearly quite different in the first world and the third world.
The clear conclusion is that fundamental rights do not exist. We choose to place certain obligations on others because they suit ourselves. In a democracy we impose these obligations on people as sets of rules called laws. Because the majority of people voted for the representatives who make and enforce these laws, many of these are in the interests of the majority.
In practice many of them are perceived to be in the interests of the majority, but are not. Like subsidization laws which just allow people to vote themselves money through the public trough, while causing much more hardship through economic damage.
See