Are Rights Right?

When someone makes a "rights" argument, it always looks identical to a religious argument to me. The reasoning can only ever come down to "Because that's what I strongly believe." You can write down all the rights you like, into law. But they will never be followed without someone willing/able to pay for that. We are already aware of military, and other, service veterans who have paid for our "rights to freedom", with their lives. If we don't have taxpayers willing to pay for police, or if police officers are not willing to take a chance on paying with their lives, a person's right to, say, not be murdered, is meaningless. At the end of another post, I suggest a problem, even, with our "right to vote". We may think "one person, one vote" is fair and reasonable. But what can a vote, in itself, do? If there was no one paying in taxes, used to implement such choices (votes), they don't mean anything. So we are already paying (taxes). Why don't we, instead, couple that payment with a vote for what you want that applied towards? If you've sat in on any committee, like a condo association, for example, you'll get where I'm going. Everyone has an equal vote. But members always know that only a few are actually going to commit time/resources to getting things done. Why not say "I feel pretty strongly about this, enough to actually contribute something tangible, so I'll 'vote' one dollar towards it." Corporations already "vote" with their money, via lobbyists. The problem there is, they are getting a good deal. They're using our "representatives" to leverage that relatively small amount of money to access the vast amount of resources American citizens have already paid in, via taxes. Having these representatives is a profitable loophole, for them. But regular citizens have also, effectively, voted with money. People can, and have, gone on-line and directly contributed money to presidential, and other, campaigns. Even with a relatively small proportion of the total populace doing this, it has made real differences in outcomes.
So what about charitable systems, such as social security, welfare, pensions, etc (I.e. not based directly/proportionately on your contribution to society, -E.g. work, etc.)? What about people who don't have the resources to contribute these "votes"? I think reasonable people understand that it is easy to fall into a situation where you can't contribute equally. We pay into insurance, understanding it is possible anyone can become injured, ill, or other ways liable for large expenses. I can easily become a member of the group who suddenly doesn't have the resources to pay for an unfortunate change in my situation. We ALREADY accept, and choose to pay for this "insurance" when we allow our government to take money out of our paychecks for "Social Security", or we allow our employers to not pay us as much as they could, because they are keeping some money to put into pension and retirement plans (for at time when we plan not to work as much). None of these things are based directly/proportionately on your daily productivity at your work. If we are AREADY choosing to allow/do this, why not continue? Why not "vote" a certain amount of money, every month, towards this? If you don't "vote" the required amount, per month, you don't get the benefit of being able to collect some of this "insurance" resource. If you don't pay because you are in a situation meant to be protected by this insurance, you should be able to easily make a "claim" that you should get some help from this program. There is no way around this being a tough one. We ALWAYS have to judge to what extent a person's situation is their own doing, and how much it was out of their control. We can never really know. We can only be guided by what we tend to do for our own family members. If in doubt, we help them out. We put a set of extra resources aside, and give people the benefit of the doubt, in hopes that they will do the same for us, if/when we get into a bad situation. And, obviously, such a system can't sustain repeated, expensive abuse. At some point you might have to make the decision to cut lose your alcoholic uncle, when he wants money to pay for his drunk-driving accident, after he voluntarily dropped out of the rehab program you already paid for him to take.