I think we're arguing the same point with different semantics.
I don't like calling it a right because, in application, rights are given to you, and can therefore be taken away. While I love the idea of rights given to you by birth, that isn't very practical. The rights that are inaliable from birth can be argued in different political contexts, and the very existence of these rights can be argued as well.
The "Do No Harm" rule is nice but also impractical.
I believe you are confusing a right with a privilege.. Privileges are given to you via legislation. A right exists beyond legislation, for example, the right to life, the right to liberty. Now that's not saying that you can't be killed or you can't be enslaved. But when those things are done by governments, they are done by legislation, it is done by force. And not because the legislature had any right to do it. One of the biggest problems in our society today is that people don't know their rights. Therefore their rights get converted into privileges. According to the maxims of the law, if you don't know your rights, you don't have any. To give another example, your right to drive is encased in your right to travel, but when you get a license you have contracted and you have now agreed that it is a privilege.
Why?