I ' d say a right not to have access interfered with might sound nice . But governments are basically agreements between people , and as such they tend to be as varied and dynamic as the populations that produce them . Ideally a government is above all responsive to the needs of its people , which is what I think you ' re getting at in your post . But , what if the Amish and the Quakers see no value in the internet ? The same can apply to your ideas about clean water etc . or even more philosophically to the role government should play . Because water , food shelter and internet access are kind of broad the role the government must take to ensure these rights depending on the resources of a given country could conflict with other unspoken ideals . Maybe we can provide plentiful water and electricity to our people living in desert regions , but only by damming a river and depriving people in other regions or countries of that same resource . Also , looking at a more granular level , there are questions of quality and quantity . What exactly are the permissions granted to a government tasked with providing internet access ? How much and what kind of food is considered adequate ? There is a world of difference between lobster and lockup loaf 4 U , though both could sustain you . Does the government make provisions for special dietary choices and needs ? Bodybuilders might be low carb for professional reasons and for some the sport is a hobby whereas for some diabetics it is a matter of life and death . Some people are vegan for ethical reasons , some for environmental or religious reasons . Jews traditionally eat geflite fish , salt water , and parsley during Seders , is this to be provided ? Is the government the sole provider of food or is the system a blend between free and socialized markets ? If the markets are entirely socialized and the government is the sole provider of food then the right to practice religion can come into conflict with the right to food .