What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said it was a "perceived" right. I used that adjective for a reason. However, your faux-argument is a convenient excuse to ignore my rebuttal to your points.

But to address your point directly, about how I only have rights to my body and property, your statement is meaningless without defining "property." Did you even know what you meant when you wrote that? Would you care to elaborate?

However, if we define a right as something legally-sanctioned, I actually have a lot of rights that aren't strictly body or property related. Further, any government that fails to enforce or violates these rights is in the wrong. Check this out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

If you mean in an absolutist, natural sense, nobody has any goddamned rights, because a right is a man-made concept. Which system are we arguing within?

Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.