it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe

it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe upon those rights, Thus says a China or North Korea or Russia are perfectly ethical governments because the government has choose their citizens do not have X rights and that is in their authority to do has a government. Instead the founding principle is "we hold these truths to be self evident" this is a foundational principle, and Philosophy of natural rights. Rights that no ethical government can violate even if the will of the people was to "agree" to the infringement. Authoritarianism is the belief that governments are the all powerful, and people are subservient to the government, and government bestowed up on the citizens their rights, I reject Authoritarianism completely and with out reservation Pointing out that government can be instituted that would infringe on natural rights is not proof that natural rights are non-existent