Ok, so what structures/mores/ethos/creeds/morals/philosophical conceptualisations are there, or should be, that establishes a minimum standard of living/potential for self-determination/code for functional conduct within society for person-to-person, person-to-business and person-to-state interactions?
For the healthy function of society within the current situation of living in the statist situation that we do, human rights are necessary because they establish a morally defined balance of power between the citizenry and the state, in the situation where the citizens have surrendered sovereignty to the state and allowed the state to hold a monopoly on violence.
I will be the first to argue that human rights are a social construct and don’t tangibly exist as something you can touch and feel. However considering that governments can be held legally accountable for denying human rights; people fight, kill and die for human rights; and societies function using human rights they very much do exist whether or not you’re willing to believe in them. Their reality comes from their realisation in the functioning of societies, not in whether or not you want to dispute their validity. (Which I’m perfectly happy to see as disputable, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.)
But, other than childish whining, what purpose does it serve to walk around demanding that they don’t exist if you aren’t going to posit something functional that works in it’s place?
Do you genuinely think a realisation of correct political conduct through egoism and selfishness will ensure a decent standard of living and a conflict free society? Or is it just a legitimisation of your own subjective experience of privilege within society; coupled with sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes until it all goes away? Because arguing that your point of view is right because it’s your experience, rather than arguing towards any attempt at a broader validity exists towards your position, is just really shitty philosophy.