What tends to be missing from the ontology of these ideas is that a positive right without an inextricable and commensurate or contrapositive responsibility is

What tends to be missing from the ontology of these ideas is that a positive right without an inextricable and commensurate or contrapositive responsibility is just an arbitrary privilege, with the implication of some paternalistic guarantor who hands them out. This is why I treat activism as a tactic with skepticism, because people rarely organize and agitate to obtain more responsibility. I would argue a right without an associated responsibility just means privilege. Freedom is separate. When people demand rights, they beg the question of first from whom, and second of what responsibility they must necessarily be taking on. When they demand freedom, they are rolling back the scope or domain of external authorities. Software freedom means using software without requiring permission. Freedom becomes an artifact of a private sphere of experience. This private sphere can be individual, it can be based on association, distance, or any number of other dimensions, but the existence of a private domain is the necessary condition for freedom. Rights on the other hand, are a public phenomenon, in that they are artifacts of an externally governed domain. In this model, freedom is something outside the scope of governed rights, over which there is neither a guarantee or oversight. Freedom has a scope, and it can only exist within a perimeter that secures it from the external rights and privileges granted by authorities. All freedom is a limit on the sovereignty and dominion of external authorities, which is what makes it so provocative. It's also why "the rights of man," and "human rights," were so controversial initially, because they require a universal authority to enforce them. The question of whether my exercising freedom may infringe on someones rights or their privileges becomes clearer when we measure it against whether it interferes with their responsibilities. When rights collide, the law is the tool we use to reconcile them. When freedoms collide, typically we either resort to negotiating rights, or defer to the principle of freedom and move on. When freedom collides with rights, we tend to negotiate an exception or set a precedent. But when freedom collides with privilege, neither can bear co-existence with the other. This models why some people think others' freedom is privilege (because it is not a function of prescribed rights or responsibilities), and that rights and privileges for others breach their freedom (by expanding the domain of authority with imposed or without commensurate responsibilities). Hence playing loud music at 4am in a neighbourhood is a rights violation, and not an exercise of freedom, because it does not occur in a private domain, which is the necessary condition of freedom.