The primary problem with a universal recognition of rights is caused by the confusion created by the tyrannical imposition of rights that are perceived as grossly unfair to those excluded from their benefit. Consider the Magna Carta, which is considered by many as the original legal document granting private property ownership. Under the threat of death the King transferred ownership of the land to a gang of thugs beholden to no one. Before that document was signed it was generally considered that the land and its people were the property of God, held only in trust by the King, whose trusteeship was responsibility to ensure the welfare of the land and the prosperity of its people. Since that day the right of private property has perpetrated a gross unfairness upon those who suddenly find themselves living on land that others claim ownership of. As long ago as The Clearances, where a million were turfed off their ancestral homelands in England in the 1700s, and as recently as the uprising in Chiapas, where the same was attempted by the government granting private ownership of communal lands, private property has maintained its existence only through violence and coercion. The entire concept of rights has been co-opted by privilege. The privilege to own slaves was considered a right for centuries but was overthrown by a reconsideration of rights as a human concept rather than a property concept. The argument for private property has never changed. At its heart there is nothing wrong with slavery. Natural Rights advocates are, as you say, very selective in their use of political philosophy, history and science. They use this to generate a train of logic which leads to the inevitable conclusion that a continuation of coercive force to uphold private property is absolutely necessary because all other rights are derived from it. What they neglect to say is that Natural Rights do not include people who do not own property. Over 85% of the people on the planet own no property.