Its a right violation to ban activities without a right violation being present. Again, it's obvious. I don't need to say anything else on that.
Henrin, yes, you need to say A LOT more than that to have presented a position. You're assuming some list of rights that you haven't laid out. You're assuming that one of those rights is not to have your activities banned when you're not violating anybody else's rights without having given any reason to believe that statement is true.
Your statement could mean just about anything depending on what guesses I make about those things. Maybe you think that getting fat and causing other people's health insurance costs to go up violates their rights. Maybe you think that not seeing fat people is a right. Maybe have such a narrow idea of what are rights that what you're saying is essentially that the government can't regulate anything and maybe you have such a broad idea of what are rights that you are saying that government isn't regulating nearly enough. To many people a "right" is something that the government can't prevent you from doing, not something relating to interactions between private individuals. So, if you were amongst them, your statement above would mean something totally different again.
You have some conception of what a right is that you buy into, but that conception is still stuck in your head. You haven't presented it. You just assumed that we think the same things are rights as you do.
Rights are the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights.
This is another great example. From these sentences I am guessing that what you are announcing is that you believe in the concept of natural law. That isn't necessarily true. You could believe what you said in this quote and have reached very different conclusions than natural law people, but I'm betting that you are actually a natural law guy. So, there are many different schools of natural law theory. Some believe that god bestowed certain rights on us. Others believe that natural law is primarily about the "natural" order of dominance of men over women, adults over children and whites over non-whites. Some natural law people believe that Hobbes got it about right when he concluded that we could derive a set of rights from the assumption that people are more likely to be able to agree about negative rights than positive rights, and he came up with a list of what he thinks those negative rights are. If I had to guess, I'd guess that is the bucket you're in. But that's totally just a guess. There have been many natural law thinkers have come up with different lists and some include positive rights. For example, there is a whole school of natural law thinkers who believe that the right to food is one of the most fundamental rights. So, again, you've basically said nothing. All you did is to hint at a broad category of schools of thought on rights.
On top of that, you're making that sort of pronouncement like natural law is so well known and universally accepted as true that it isn't necessary to defend or explain your position. In reality the school of thought on rights you're referencing has essentially been discarded by the world for more than 100 years. There are virtually no philosophers or political theorists that would say that they believe in natural law any more. The core idea- that people will be more readily able to agree on negative rights- doesn't turn out to be true at all. On top of that, what rights one person happens to think they can derive from nature are often totally different than what the next guy thinks. How rights are supposed to be balanced against one another is equally subjective. The theory doesn't really buy you anything.
Anyways, the point is, you seem to just be assuming that everybody thinks the same things you do. You buy into some particular conception of natural law, so you figure everybody is probably thinking the same thing, so all you need to do is make some bare hint at what you're thinking and they can fill in all the gaps. That isn't reality. In reality you need to say what you're thinking so that we can understand what you mean to express.