To be honest, I'm having a hard time way to express this concisely enough for an HN comment, but the gist is that, while the government can protect rights, rights must exist even if no single authority is responsible for protecting them. Otherwise, they are privileges.

This isn't quite the same thing, but look up the arguments for why Internet access is not a human right[1]. I can't find the article I'm thinking of that explains it well, but the idea is that, if someone lacks Internet access on a desert island, it's not necessarily because someone is actively infringing on their right. If someone is a slave to another, someone is actively infringing on their human rights under Article 4 of the UDHR.

[1] Contrast 'human right' with 'civil right' and you'll see why the concept of 'rights' is so complex.

Think of it this way:

The GPL grants you the right of access to source code for software distributed to you by denying the author his right to keep it from you.

So the GPL, like the state, doesn't grant rights per se, so much as it restricts others' ability to take action that would infringe on said rights.