That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.
Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.
My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that will can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.
Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.
My point was to prove that it cannot be determined that Rights are inborn.
That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
It's a cold hard truth.
Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.