I think you also mean a very specific set of rights though, right? The right to act rather than a right to things. So you would possibly disagree that there's such thing as a right to health care and education?
Ultimately I think these principals you've described are too broad and simple to be a meaningful basis to organise a society around. Providing everyone free health care is a benefit to everyone, but it's not providing equal treatment to sick individuals and to healthy individuals. Providing a robust welfare state is a benefit to everyone, in that it lowers crime, and keeps a standard of demand in the economy during a downturn, but it's not providing equal treatment to employed individuals and unemployed individuals. Providing free education is a benefit to everyone, but it not providing equal treatment to the young and the old, or the childless and the families. Are we elevating the collective over the individual by asking people to pay for these things?
Marginal utility says those things have to be funded by the well off to the direct benefit of the less well off. The more well off people do benefit, by having less crime, better educated potential employees, fewer beggars in the streets, tenants and customers not suddenly dropping out of the economy due to receiving a big health care bill, or losing their job. But they're indirect benefits, so they're a lot harder to understand.
What's best for the individual isn't always what they think is best for them. In a way, I'm saying "I know what's best for people" and that shits people off. People have different areas of specialist knowledge though. Large societies are bloody complex things. You have to take your car to the mechanic to get it fixed because they have the specialist knowledge to fix it. You don't put it up for a vote. But somehow we ask everyone to vote for some of the most complex problems facing us, and instead of listening to the advice of people for whom this is their primary area of study, politics is now a big song and dance about who can give you the most stuff, or at the very least who can make you feel the most comfortable and simultaneously the most outraged.
So individual rights are cool and all, but marketing a cult of the individual and puffing up peoples egos makes them less likely to even want to pay for other peoples health problems. It seems like half the Americans on GAF think that, because they've been indoctrinated with the elevation of the individual. Trying to explain that helping the collective is also good for the individual is like talking to a brick, because all they see is a bigger tax bill, meaning they can afford one less piece of consumer garbage that they've been programmed to want.
(group of) individual(s) pursuit of collectivism or dictatorship even though neither of these necessarily do harm. There's also the tragedy of the commons problem every individual has a right to the commons but who has the responsibility ?
