A right to vote is predicated on freedom of association among a nation's individual citizens. A person determines for himself whether he will or will not vote. It's not for society's sake that a vote is cast.
And you absolutely would lose your right to safety without police or some other form of protection. The ‘right’ might exist in your own mind, but it won’t do anything to prevent someone else who doesn’t share that belief from killing you and taking all your stuff. Rights are only meaningful with power behind then.
Semantics matter. If we can't even agree on the meaning of our terms, then we're talking past each other. Political beliefs aren't necessary to define rights.
And I'm well aware of claimed "meaning" of rights. However, as I stated earlier, such a meaning is contradictory. If a provision must be received from others, then it's not a right. It is a privilege. What the state gives, it is able to take away. Housing that is provided, subsidized, or constructed by the state isn't a right as at any point in time as the state can withhold payments to, modify, take, or demolish such housing.
> And you absolutely would lose your right to safety without police or some other form of protection.
People defended themselves long before there were professional policeman. Additionally, police officers can steal from, maim, and kill people just the same. The badge doesn't inhibit them from choosing to violate the rights of individuals. I don't see how that disproves my point. Safety is product of exercising the right to defend or remove oneself from a dangerous situation. I don't need to seek permission or pay someone protection money to secure my safety.
> The ‘right’ might exist in your own mind, but it won’t do anything to prevent someone else who doesn’t share that belief from killing you and taking all your stuff. Rights are only meaningful with power behind then.
Nothing prevents the state from killing people and stealing their stuff too. Governments have done that before, and many still do it today. Every government is composed of people who are little better in a moral sense than the average individual.
However, If you truly think that power is what makes rights meaningful, then you contradict your earlier statement about housing being a right, even in the popular sense of the term. If power makes right, then no rights exist, as people are no different from resources. Resources don't have rights and the state has no obligation to resources.
Police protection exists because the state has a monopoly on violence. Even if the police were never present however, as in the case of very remote areas with small populations, one always has a right to self-defense.
Roads and schools are not rights. They're paid for by other people's money and built by the labor of others. Parks are pieces of land the government has almost always wrongfully taken by way of eminent domain.
Elections are a complicated case. Individuals have a right to vote, but state legislatures have wide berth to set the terms of voting within their respective jurisdictions. While I would say there is a right to vote, there isn't a right to an election on terms or rules one finds favorable for one's self.