So by your account, a >>"right" to food, shelter and health care<< would mean people would still have to worry (but not much). That's kindalike what the parent was saying, there is no universal right (to Basic Income).

So there have to be arguments and he's giving one, that this proposal is hardly going to be afforded by those in the position to do so. Which part of the actual argument do you disagree with? It seem you are saying the workers would have to want to afford it (because its a positive right), but you don't actually show it.

define "right not to be murdered". I never used that.

And no, you can't just arbitrarily give people rights to shit. You can only guarantee things which do not require a human to be constantly working for it as a right. When you declare healthcare, or food as a right, you are enslaving farmers and doctors, not to mention stealing from people on a greater scale for nothing at all, for something the market could have easily done.