Rights don't describe what you need to be free, they just say that you do have the right to be free. Then laws are put in place to try to protect your right.
I thought we were discussing human rights, and therefore I use text of the Declaration. This text is certainly more specific than stating that humans are free. It also describes positive rights, for one.
I can only conclude that you continue to not inform yourself of any discussion on the subject. I've never heard anyone serious describe rights as 'pretty simple'. Advocates of reducing rights to a limited and for them convenient set, yes, but that is precisely the challenge.
That sounds like lawlessness. I can't get punished when I violate rights because that would be an infringement on my rights, so there's no encouragement by me or anyone else to respect rights.
What basis exists for us being able to claim that we have arrived at the final set of rights sufficient to describe what a human needs to be free?