I shouldn't have said that rights are moot when a person is completely isolated. Rights exist and apply in all situations. It is difficult, however to have the problem of infringement of rights when one is completely isolated from all other humans.
Again, I highly recommend Dr. Spitzer's book, where he devotes chapters to the subject of rights. The topic is difficult to cover in this forum.
But, (since I am human), I will try.
We have discussed the difference between humans and all other beings that we know: humans are the species which has a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge. As far as we know, this impetus is innate, intrinsic and unconditional in the representatives of the species.
I have the right to live because I am a human, whether anyone else is around or not. Whether we can communicate is irrelevant to the fact that we are human. We are of human origin, that should be sufficient to assume the rights of another, otherwise, we risk doing unconditional harm to human beings by infringing their rights.
Rights are mostly negative. No one may kill another human, because killing him causes unconditional harm: he is no longer living and cannot be restored to life. No one may enslave another human being in such a way that he cannot express his humanity, at the threat of loss of life or self potential, self-direction. So, the right to life is the right not to be killed. The right to liberty is the right not to be enslaved.
Rights exist and apply in all situations. Seems like too broad a statement to be true. Do rights exist among trees? Rocks? In the dead of space?
And if the possibility of rights infringement cannot exist (in the 1 person example), what meaning do rights have?
humans are the species which has a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge. As far as we know, this impetus is innate, intrinsic and unconditional in the representatives of the species.
I don't understand what "unconditional beauty", or "unconditional truth" mean.
I have the right to live because I am a human, whether anyone else is around or not.
You have the right to live because you have "a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge"? How does this follow?
No one may kill another human, because killing him causes unconditional harm
Our soldiers are rights violators? People using deadly force in self-defense are rights violators?
No one may enslave another human being in such a way that he cannot express his humanity, at the threat of loss of life or self potential, self-direction.
Are we violating the rights of prisoners?
Seems we've taken a few steps back. I don't think I follow your explanations of what rights are or when and why they are relevant.