You didn't answer the question:
In an anarchical society, what right beyond the most basic and primal would you be entitled to?
In a society where you could be shot dead for speaking your mind...what individual right to free speech would you have...
Allow me to try; under anarchy all rights are complete and absoulute, you have the absolute right to do completely as you please, problem is, so does everyone else. This is why they call it anarchy.
In the next example, we have countries that do shoot you for speaking your mind, and it is legal, but that's a different story, so let's leave that for a bit.
True anarchy doesn't last long, as the strong kill the weak either all are killed or alliances are formed amongst like thinking parties. To ensure survival, rules of conduct have to be set out. They could be rules like those of Somalia, where pirates rule, which resemble those of the dark ages or before, or something more civilised.
This is somehwhat of a dichotomy because society needs the rule of law to exist, but the rule can cause society to turn to anarchy, I'm thinking the French revolution, but there are many examples.
Still, the rule of law is required for society to be civilised. I'll take your thinking that governments grant all rights, and work it backward. Instead we say all rights are complete and absolute, but it is the rule of law that limits the rights of people so as not to infringe on the rights of others. It is my right to have a loud party, but it is limited by your right to peace and quiet. But your right to peace and quiet has to be reasonable and consider others' enjoyment or the noise of commerce, (construction). If you want other examples of reasonable limitations of rights I'll give them, but hopefully this will suffice.
Centuries of English Common Law are based on the balance of rights. We have for centuries had the right to defend our possessions and property, often it was our duty, and I suppose that is why wives and childeren were considered property. Real property, i.e. real estate is a bit different, as we are tennants of land basically owned by the crown, but that gets into a different argument. We are entitled to defend it, but it can still be expropriated, wives and children cannot. Remember, wives could not be protected under prima nochta, they were not the property of the husband, if property could be defended at all at that time.
Before this degenerates ito a fight about what are rights, I'll state what rights are not; they are not anything that require an action, obligation or encumbrance by another party. Rights are freedoms employed solely by the individual and no one else. Much of what Canadian society, and others, consider rights are not rights at all, but ambitions, which require the actions of others.
Governments do not give rights, they take them away, sometimes supplanting pseudo rights in their stead. This gives the illusion of governments giving rights, they give rights to those who supposedly have none, this is political expediency, it gives power to the government. Many countries shoot people for speaking freely, a right that we used to have, a right taken away.
Again, rights are not given by government, they are taken away, a right not exercised is a right lost. It is time we come to realise that the government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around, unless of course you like totalitarianism.
