If one can simply make up any rights someone feels like having, even when they contradict fundamental rights (see my earlier post), I don't think they can be considered "real".

If you believe in equal rights (i.e., nobody is king of the universe) then you can't support the infringing of some people's rights for the benefit of others.

Isn't taxation precisely that? I mean, if the government coming and taking some portion of your stuff isn't an infringement of your negative rights, what is?

Yet I'm all for tax, if it pays for necessary stuff.

Assuming you didn't agree to it, it sure is. But it's possible to want the necessary stuff without favoring a tax.

Much of the way I express myself is via the Internet. Take away my net access, and I don't have freedom of expression.

We're stabbing at the same liver mate. ;)

Well, at least as far as the USA is concerned, the founders enumerated the list of natural rights endowed on people by their creator. This was not arbitrary, it was based on thousands of years of western philosophy. What the original poster is worried about is the conflation of entitlements with rights.

erm, no. The USA Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on government which attempts to explicitly protect some natural rights, _NOT_ an enumeration of all natural rights.

As long as the "right to internet access" is a specialization of the right to freely associate (preemptively ruling out three strike laws and whatnot), I don't see how it's impinging upon anyone's right to be left alone.

What you're describing is really the right to seek internet access, and I agree with your analysis of it. For anyone to proclaim the existence of a "right to internet access" is dangerously vague, however.