How am I supposed to believe that health is a high[er] law than liberty?

There is a faction in political theory that argues that, for rights to have any meaning at all, you need first to guarantee the conditions of life that make rights realizable. For example, the right to work is pointless if there are no jobs available.

Says Jeremy Waldron:

if one is really concerned to secure civil or political liberty for a person, that commitment should be accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person's life that make it possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty. Why on earth would it be worth fighting for this person's liberty (say, his liberty to choose between A and B) if he were left in a situation in which the choice between A and B meant nothing to him, or in which his choosing one rather than the other would have no impact on his life?