I beg to differ.
In the real world (not academia or metaphysics) people have only those rights that they are able and willing to assert and hence enjoy. All else is sophistry.
people enjoy only those rights that they are able and willing to assert
In other words, I say you have them and enjoy only those you are willing and able to assert, whereas you would say that you only have those you are willing and able to assert.
Regardless, we both agree that you can enjoy only those rights you are willing and able to assert.
Then they are not natural at all and are the inventions of folly. Either rights are as real as your television set, or they are wishfull thinking.
Lets follow your premise to its logical.
Sample case: by means of force, coersion, or otherwise, you are detained and forced to conduct hard labor. Your property is simply taken from you. You are brutally beaten if you speak, or pray, or on the whim of your guards. The party enslaving you has more than enough guards and money to keep you in this state perpetually unless an outside force intervenes.
The result of this situation is that you are unable to assert and hence enjoy any right to freedom: to be free from detention without accusation of a crime, to be secure in your person, house, paper, and effect, etc.
Therefore, by your definition of rights, even though this entire scenario occurs within the US, you have no rights.
ergo, your definition of rights is false.