I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes.
This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong.
People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate.
Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them.
There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
The slavery example doesn't resonate with me. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
But in everything else I would say you seem a little too attached to yourself as a decider. You are a stand-in for literally any other person. Hence everyone else shares the same rights. The whole thing is a legal approximation of fairness. But we get mixed up and call it our identity.
The goal shouldn't necessarily be to be the best individual You are because of how awesome that is to be You. We are a society. A fair society functions well valuing individual rights because it works out in the aggregate.
But I am going too far in a tangent. Enjoy your day.
It isn't an attachment and it has nothing to do with individual virtue but rights and ownership. If it is infringed it is stolen and a travesty. They are meant to be guarded and fought for jealously.
That you cannot see rights as belonging to people fundamentally is a disturbing mentality - for it suggests throwing it all away whenever it is expedient. Which is no way for an ethical or moral framework.
Which has a definition so open to interpretation that killing you to "donate" your organs would be justifiable or taken further turned into very expensive furniture it would be justified because your flayed corpse embedded in plastic would be worth a billion to some depraved collector. Don't worry about the arbitrary deaths - all were done by lottery for the benefit of the rest of society.
I am not advocating taking away rights, or murdering people for their organs. If you are so quick to get angry and compare things to slavery and murder, perhaps look at why that is.
This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong.
People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate.
Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.