Are you defining "right" as "anything you can do, you have a right to do so."?
I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.
Rights are potential
actions that may or may not be exercised by persons. Free speech, right to defend one's life, etc.
These actions are freely accessible in the absence of society.
Even if society dictates that someone cannot engage in an action, this alone cannot stop one form engaging in that action. Free speech is universal. Anyone, anywhere can exercise this natural right. Unfortunately, in some places, they will create consequences for a person who exercises this right.
But the existence of consequences do not deny the right. The right still exists. The person can make a choice to accept the consequences for exercising their right. There is no way anyone, anywhere can actually prevent someone from exercising their rights if they make this choice.
Even under threat of death, a person can still choose to exercise their rights.
Another example would be that I wouldn't say a person has a right to life, but they
do have a right to defend their life. They may not succeed, but nobody, no law, can prevent them from trying to defend their lives.
basically, I define "rights" as the capability to perform potential actions where this capability is granted by virtue of existence and cannot be denied to a person who chooses to engage in that action regardless of consequence.
They can exist in the absence of society.
What people are discussing here is what I would call "freely exercised rights". The ability to freely exercise ones rights is entirely dictated by society. Any society may choose to create laws which implement consequences for exercising certain rights, thus negating the ability to freely exercise those rights without fear of consequence, but they cannot actually prevent people from exercising those rights if the people so choose.
You can only implement consequences
after the fact. So they are
still inalienable. You cannot alienate a person from their rights, you can only punish them for exercising them.