Rights
Logical consequences of agency and the passive Golden Rule. Given an agent who can act, and the rule against doing to others what they would not want done to them, certain boundaries follow by reasoning alone. They are limits others may not cross without consent, over an agent's body, property, and agreements. A right is one of those boundaries, named. Any agent who can reason can work them out; they are not granted by power-holders or votes. They bind everyone the same way: claim a right and you owe the identical right to every agent like you, so whoever crosses another's boundary forfeits the protection of their own. Rights say only what others must not do to you, never what they must hand you. A "right" that needs someone forced to supply it would itself break the Golden Rule, so it is power dressed up as a right, not a right. They matter only where a crossing is possible.
Frequently asked
What about the right to healthcare, education, or housing?
A right, in this framework, is a boundary others must not cross — it tells people what they may not do to you. A "right to healthcare" means someone must be forced to provide it, which crosses their boundary. That is not a right but a claim on another's labor, indistinguishable from coercion. Real rights cost nothing to respect: they require only that others leave you alone. Services you value are obtained through trade, not force.
If rights aren't granted by government, where do they come from?
From logic. Given that agents can act, and that the Golden Rule forbids doing to others what they would not want done to them, certain boundaries follow by reasoning alone. Any agent who can reason can derive them. Government may recognize and protect rights, but it does not create them — just as it does not create gravity by writing physics textbooks.