The piece does not address the fundamental point that you cannot with intellectual honesty claim as a right that which, to be satisfied, requires another human being to perform work.
So, I don't have a right to a trial, which requires the work of a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury? What about the right to vote, which requires someone to count the votes?
Well, those rights are a bit different from, say, free speech, methinks.
In my opinion, we have the right to free speech by virtue of being human. At bare minimum, one has a brain, and that brain controls one's mouth. No other human can control someone else's voice in any fashion similar to how he controls his own. To restrict someone from exercising this right requires an outside force to aggress against the speaker. Societies today more or less agree, there's little (or nothing) one can say that should justify violence against the speaker. Similar reasoning can be applied to the use of justly acquired property as a means of disseminating information. It's a promise from government: "I won't take this away from you".
The right to a trial is different. No human is born with this right, as no human pops out of the womb with a staffed courthouse in his possession. In fact, the notion of a right to trial doesn't make sense if there are no laws. It also doesn't make sense if there are no conflicts (alone on a desert island). It's also a promise from government: "I'll give you the right to contest my decisions before I use force against you". It's more like a return policy than a natural right, in my opinion.
Those are civil and not human rights, and they only exist because someone is already going through the trouble of governing you. Civil rights are a way of saying, as long as we're going to have a government, let's make sure it operates fairly and tries not to violate your human rights. The relevant human rights are, respectively, the right not to be locked in a cage without a very good reason and the right to have some say over your own life. Theoretically, you wouldn't need the right to a trial or the right to vote if it wasn't for the government going around and potentially violating your human rights.
On the other hand, by this reasoning at least, there's no such thing as a right to free beer, because then someone, somewhere would be obligated to brew you some beer, and that would violate his rights.