The idea that rights exist because men (and who would these men be, besides "government"?) put them on paper is an oxymoron.
If they came from men, they're not "rights", they're privileges. They could have not given them, they weren't "there" before, and they can be gone again.
If the rights are not God given, they are a figment of imagination. A convenient construct whose only purpose is to dictate an orderly society at the whim of the men who gave the rights and who can just as well take them back.
There is, after all, no real right there at all, if they are constructs of men written on paper. It is not wrong to take them away. It can't be wrong, because there is no wrong, because wrong would be defined by whomever has the power to define it.
If the right to live free, to defend oneself, to pursue happiness, are simply constructs of the powerful, who is to deny the powerful the ability to remove them at will? They are, after all, the powerful and we are weak. For what cause would we rail against them? We fight for figments of imagination? What would be the rallying cry? We are weak and you who are powerful took what we want?
No. We fight for our rights because they ARE. They exist whether they be denied or removed by force. Our only reasonable argument is that those rights are universal, built into the fabric of our existence.
Do the people in Iran not have the freedom of religion? Or is it merely denied them by force? Do they not have the right to pursue happiness, or is it merely forcefully denied them?
No, rights are universal. They must be, or they are not, at all.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.