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.