Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. By inalienable, I mean that they may not be alienated from the person who possesses them, i.e., they may not be given or taken away, i.e., they may not be morally infringed upon. For example, a man may violate your right to your property by taking it away from you, but your right to that property has not been alienated, i.e., you are in the right and the robber is in the wrong. No, as these rights are corollaries of the right to life, they do not contradict the right to life, or each other, but form a single integrated whole. All other rights are simply the right to life applied to different contexts.
All rights are rights to freedom of action.
Keep in mind that rights are not guarantees that those actions will always be successful. Pursuit does not mean attainment, though it is a necessary precondition to attaining it. Similarly the right to life, is the right to take those actions necessary to survive, free from the physical compulsion and interference of other men. The right to life does not mean that one can force others to support ones life against their will. If it does, it is not a right.