I realise I'm a little late to the game, but rights were explained to me once as: An item to which a group has access, that the ruling authority cannot block.

I realise I'm a little late to the game, but rights were explained to me once as: An item to which a group has access, that the ruling authority cannot block. Examples of this can be speech, in the US, the government does not grant speech, but rather they do not block access to it (within limits as defined by the SC). Also, the right the bear arms, it's something again that is inherently the citizens but the government does not block access. In the case of Internet, it being a right is different to it being a utility. As a right the government would be obligated to not block people from accessing it (again SC caveat) but has no obligation to provide it. I will caveat by saying that also disallowed are underhanded methods of blocking access to rights or blocked rights as a side effect (whether intentional or not). So the government and citizenry has to ensure that rights are being preserved by evaluating new and existing laws and adjust course as needed (either via redrafting legislation or via the SC) Of course, the above definition assumes the existence of a state, but I think that's fair. In a true anarchy we have all freedoms but of course the risks that go with that. The establishment of a state necessitates the blocking of some "freedoms" but depending on the government we retain some, which are then known as rights.