Rights and Entitlements

I'd like to know what other Libertarians think about the institution of Human Rights. Where exactly they come from, to whom do they apply, and just what are our rights?

So called "natural rights" are intended to be universal, applying in all times and places. But how would such rights be determined? We surely can't rely on subjective opinions on their source being from any God or another. Is it possible to use reason and logic to determine what they should be, and by what criteria should the attempt to do so be made by?

Or are there no natural rights at all, but merely legal human rights that are neither universal nor unalienable? Would "rights" that lack universality and unalienability even be worthy of being called rights, or would they merely be allowances granted to us by our 'benevolent' masters?

I bring up these questions for two reasons. One, is that the UN's Universal Declaration of Rights does a wonderful job and mucking up the difference between natural and legal rights and has thoroughly confused matters. And secondly, because it seems that more and more often so called "rights" are being pushed on the people by the governments, such as Finland's "right" to high speed internet access. The difference often pointed out between the type of natural rights that were named in America's Declaration of Independence or Virginia's own Declaration of Rights (of which I'm a fan) and some of the rights listed in the UN's UDR and Finland's right to high speed internet is that the former are "negative rights" and the latter are "positive rights".

Negative rights are those things that a sentient being cannot be justly deprived of and are often most simply put as being the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Positive rights are what I prefer to call entitlements. Things that people claim that every human deserves to be provided by other humans, such as social security, a job, periodic holidays with pay, and "food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" (All of which are declared in the UN's UDR).

It is my thinking that the obfuscation of these two types or "rights" is a threat to human liberty because it both 1) Raises entitlements and government programs up to the level of sanctity that the public views human rights as possessing and 2) By watering down the importance of true human rights, no one can take a human's right to liberty seriously when it is set on the same level as a right to high speed internet access.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance to draw distinct definitions of what should be held as true universal and inviolable rights are, and by what standard we determine them to be such.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts on the matter this Sunday.