>>42484245
I would call "human rights" an application of "civil rights" on a global scale, leading to the same problems. Look at how it usually gets translated into policy. If bunch of third-world dumpster people from some war-torn shithole show up at your border claiming asylum, you have to take them in and give them whatever they need, because to do otherwise would be a human rights violation. If they do nothing but suck up resources and cause problems for the rest of your population, too bad; you can't send them back because "human rights."
Human rights are also frequently invoked as a justification of war. If the ruler of some out of the way third world shithole is oppressing gays or women or something, it's a "human rights" violation, so your country must then invade them and spend the next quarter-century rebuilding their infrastructure for them.
A natural rights outlook works the same on an international scale as it does on an individual scale. It means recognizing that everyone has their own path to follow, and just because somebody somewhere is suffering doesn't mean it's your country's business to intervene. Refugees show up? "Sorry your country's a shithole, that's rotten luck, but we don't have any use for you and we're not going to let you in. Here's a bottle of water and a $5 off coupon good at any Mexico-area Hot Topic, now off with you." Government of Durkadurkastan is oppressing its gays and women? "That's a shame, but unless they're a direct threat to us, it's not our problem. Maybe if you're a gay in Durkadurkastan, you should consider being gay someplace else. But not here, because we have enough gays."