A right is a universal, contractual obligation, reciprocally granted to others by voluntary consent to the agreement of all parties.
A natural right is a NECESSARY right that we must have in order to form a cooperative division of labor – largely by avoiding violence, fraud, and theft. The only natural right is property and all other rights derive from that one. Because the only possible rights you can reciprocally grant regardless of circumstances are those that do not require material resources from you:
1) property rights (safety and freedom of your body, your children, your spouse and your things),
2) Charity under temporary duress (mutual insurance to the extend of your capacity)
3) kindness without material cost (manners that signal safety and that you will respect both 1, and 2.)
Since these require no resources from you other than those at your disposal in a temporary emergency, then these are the only rights that all people regardless of condition can grant to others, and they are the only necessary rights in a division of knowledge and labor.
A Human RIght as we use the term, a statement of moral ambition. They are aspirations, because very few things can be both necessary and reciprocally granted. We call these aspirations rights in an effort to pursuade all governments to implement these aspiration with the force of law, thereby making the aspirations into contractual rights for all people within a polity.
The universal declaration of human rights consists almost entirely of derivations of property rights. Where they do not, they suggest that we must work together to raise people out of poverty (but we cannot stop them from breeding – which is what would achieve it.)
There is a very great difference between what is possible to possess as rights that are guaranteed by others, and those that we desire to have guaranteed by others. If it requires others act, then that is very difficult. If it requires others refrain from acting, that is somewhat easier. In current western governments we ask people to refrain from consumption by taxing them so that others may consume. So far this is the only possible way we have found to solve the problem of inequality of ability and circumstance in solving material disparities, even if immaterial disparities (no fraud theft or violence) are possible without material cost.
PART II – ANSWERING ALL QUESTIONS ON RIGHTS
(Added in response to the question: “Yes or No?”
The problem is the wording of the question. It is either dishonest, misleading or erroneous. But it is so common that it is worth answering:
“Are there” is a play on words – a deception. Are there where? Where are they? if they exist, where are they? If you cannot find them, then how do they exist? How do they come into being? If you can ACT to create them, then you can make them exist by your actions. If many people act the same way, for some reason, and they require others to act the same way or they will ignore, ostracize or punish them, then that action is called a ‘norm’.
So, if you say that some rights are required for us to cooperate, or at least, avoid violence, then if we want to cooperate we must act to create those rights. And by our actions, create a habit, that is a norm.
One of the ways to create a habit is force (law). But most laws are the contractual codification of norms, in order to justify, and clarify, and create equal punishments for, violation of those norms.
All rights are contract rights. That contract can be temporary and conditional mutual consent. It can be habit within the group. It can be norm within society. It can be codified with the force of law.
That some set of normative contract rights are NECESSARY for human life, in order to make cooperation POSSIBLE, is true. Without some portfolio of property rights it is not possible to develop a division of knowledge and labor. It is not even possible for people to live together in tribes or families.
That some OTHER set of normative contract rights is ADDITIONALLY necessary if we want to achieve other things in society, we need only develop the means of communicating and enforcing them.
So, again, the original question is an erroneous play on words. A contract right cannot exist without someone else’s participation in an exchange of rights. And normative contract rights require most people grant them and that they somehow punish offenders. And legal rights require that most people have hired specialists (politicians and judges) to specialize in enforcing their legal rights.
As such, there are normative contractual rights that are necessary for human life in a polity EVEN IF there is no force of law. These rights are commonly called NATURAL RIGHTS. Living in the natural world requires that we have them.
Beyond necessary (natural) contract rights, there are PREFERRED normative contract rights that become possible ONLY because a market society is generating enough excess production through the division of knowledge labor and capital, that it becomes possible to MAINTAIN the norm of natural rights, while granting, conditionally, assuming the resources exist, those PREFERRED contractual rights. In this case, these PREFERRED rights are not necessarily granted by individuals directly, but through the corporation we call the government, and its members – the bureaucracy. Thus creating a third party, albiet an organizational party, to the contract.
Pareto efficiency is the idea that you can take some amount of taxes from group A and distribute those funds either directly (good) or via services (bad), to group B, without causing the producers of taxes in group A to stop working, or to slow their working, thereby making the act of taxation counter productive. And, when, above, I say, that we can gant additional, not necessary, but preferred, contract rights to people, if we can, we are limited in their willingness to maintain the norm of NATURAL contract rights.
Human (contract) Rights, in the sense that they have been written as a document called the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, include both NECESSARY and PREFERRED contract rights. The additional rights that are preferred, are preferred because conditions must exist to make them possible, and those conditions are greater than any individual can grant to any other individual. Therefore human rights are a political, governmental, and legal contract right.
The only necessary rights are property rights: Life, body, action, time, and property. Which means avoiding theft and violence.
The necessary rights for the high trust society also appear to include (a) prohibition against fraud (fraud by misrepresentation), (b) requirement for fully informed symmetry of information in any exchange (fraud by omission) (c) warranty as a defense against fraud and asymmetry, (d) requirement of action to earn profit, (e) prohibition against free-riding, privatization (corruption), profit by impediment. The net of these rules is that all exchanges are voluntary and that all competition takes place only in the market for goods and services.
I believe that this answers all questions on the cause and difference between rights as contract rights, (necessary) natural rights, and (preferred) human rights, and how they can be used as temporary (truce), normative (culture), and legal (political), and economic (positive) contractual rights.
I could edit this a bit. But it is very close to the final word on rights as we understand them.