The title explains it all. The question pretty much is where rights start and where they end. The utilitarian/consequentialist does not see rights as necessarily existing, although the notions behind rights can sometimes be desirable to him, the question is the practicality of such things and he sees nothing wrong with intervening with the free actions of individuals to pursue the ideal goal. Then there are individuals that only see negative rights as existing, the view is that individuals only have a right over themselves and there actions, this can include free speech, guns or even drug use and suicide. Finally, there are individuals that view positive rights as existing, ultimately these individuals see society as having a duty to individuals to act in a manner to help them, such as a right to healthcare, welfare, employment, housing, social security, etc, but often tend to also see individuals as having some negative rights.
The big reason why I ask this question is because right is a word that is thrown around by individuals seeking various ends so pretty much I am curious about the views of individuals here. I suppose that it is best to go with the option that one agrees with the most as nobody is a perfect embodiment of any of the 3.