Rights: those areas of action in which others have an obligation to not interfere.
Rights are a purely social concept, and a specific way of ordering a society. If an individual has a right to act, then they have some sort of (at least moral) claim upon everyone else (since the only actual actors in the world are persons, I don't bother to mention groups) to NOT interfere with that action. And it doesn't matter how much one or a million of them dislike your gay mexican nazi float in the parade. Too damn bad. They have an obligation to not interfere.
Interesting that when one constitutes rights as a moral obligation to be left alone by others that one cannot have conflicting rights. And positive rights are incoherent. And the "unless you interfere with the rights of others" falls out by accident.
The question: do humans have rights (a moral claim not to be interfered with in at least some areas) or not? Not is a legitimate answer...but I know of no other political theory to oppose total government than rights-based theories.
Now...there are disputes about rights...which individual rights do persons have? Almost universally, they begin with life, liberty, fruits of one's labors, property*, self defense, freedom of conscience. Usually religion, speech, congregation, association are also listed explicitly. Lack of freedom of religion, lack of free speech, lack of self-defense are all known to, if infringed, allow all other rights to fail as well. Strong rights to property (claim against governments and others from stealing it, claim against others from preventing you from transfering property to mutual benefit) appears to be the greatest known path to prosperity (for nations) yet discovered.
* please no sophomoric nonsense about property, life as guarantees rather than non-interference claims.