If they are swinging their arms and you move into the space they are occupying intermittently, then you have violated their rights by taking up the space they needed to swing their arms.
Nice attempt to substitute “privelege” for “right”, BTW.
The concept that one’s rights trump others’ rights is inherently abridgement of their rights. When states and cities started with the smoking bans, they always couched it in terms of the rights of non-smokers, and never in terms of the property owners or smokers. The non-smokers’ rights were used to cancel the rights of even the people who owned the bar or restaurant to determine whether customers were allowed to smoke.
Now, you are here claiming an inviolable, portable smoke-free zone around yourself, no matter whether the smoker was in the space you decide to occupy first. The only way that logical equation balances is if they have NO rights - only you can have the rights you claim. They are only allowed the “privileges” you allow.
Which means you are considered in the exact same position from someone else’s perspective.
You cannot make a logical case that is balanced based on your assertion of having superior rights to anyone who asserts a right that “affects” you, regardless of circumstance.
Yes, I do claim a poison-free zone from smokers as a basic right. And, there are plenty of other people around who also claim that poison-free zone around them, from the poisonous fumes from smokers.
In the end - we all know how this is going to turn out (no matter which side you are on) - because pretty much all people with common sense know that they, personally, have a right to be poison-free, even if someone else chooses to poison themselves. They know - inherently - that the other person’s desire to poison themselves does not extend to any other people, against their will.
Just wait a few more years and you’ll see where this one will go. It won’t be in favor of those who poison themselves and wish to extend that to others against their will.