Out of curiosity, where do you propose such rights stem from?
And would you argue that those same rights were still "natural"/unalienable etc. even in a society that universally didn't accept them?
If they came about as the result of "natural evolution" then they can't be truly universal in the sense that evolution could very well have taken different paths that led to a species recognisably similar to us but whose nature and genetic make up would lead to adoption of a quite different set of rights than those you believe to be unalienable.
As it is, I suspect you'd have a hard time getting many groups of humans from millennia ago to agree with you on exactly what such rights are. Or are they all wrong too?
Bees followed a different evolutionary path, and human rights are not applicable to them.
> Or are they all wrong too?
Humans are full of false beliefs. If they believe that man does not have a right to liberty, then they are wrong, just as wrong as believing that throwing virgins into volcanoes assures a good harvest.
I don't believe that man has an intrinsic right to liberty - just that societies where basic human rights (including various freedoms) are protected by the state are more likely to flourish and grant their citizens more meaningful and fairer existence. I don't believe we've come close yet to perfecting exactly what those rights should be and how they should be protected however.