People talk about "individual rights" and "group rights" all the time, but forget about the rights of the state that secure them.
The state does not have "rights."
It is nothing more than a group of individuals who possess power over other individuals. The only legitimate powers in governance are those that have been explicitly delegated by an individual, and for the individual. Beyond that, powers can only exist if the people tolerate violations of individual rights.
If I cannot stand by the front door, 24/7, with a gun in the event where a criminal should break into my home, I can delegate that role contractually to a protection agency of my choice, and agree on terms with regard to crime prevention and law enforcement.
If I cannot stand by my hose, 24/7, in the event that my home should catch fire, I can hire a fire insurance agency to assume that role as well.
These contracts do not grant police or fire agencies any power, or "rights," beyond what I already had and then have expressly given them; mainly, to provide needful services for hire, should I be in need of them.
Likewise, their "state equivalents" do not possess the "right" to go beyond an explicit contract. Given that this contract is non-existent, the state cannot be said to have a "right" to provide these services at the public's expense, however basic they are.
A website called "Government Is Good" makes typical apologies for the state that defy common sense, such as: "We Americans enjoy an unprecedented bounty of rights and freedoms in our lives, not in spite of government, but in large part because of government." (source)
But this is ridiculous. The exact opposite is the case:
We Americans enjoy an unprecedented bounty of rights and
freedoms in our lives in spite of government, not because of it.
As I have just demonstrated, "government" (in the non-compulsory sense) is not necessarily impossible, absent of a coercive state. Contracts are legitimate, binding, and enforceable in the absence of an institution that asserts the monopoly privilege of forcing others to accept their services, no matter how inefficient, immoral, or tyrannical their means prove to be.
No matter how basic the service in question is, the state does not have a "right" to thieve anyone of their earnings in order to provide them, any more than a robber, regardless of how charitable they profess to be with their ill-gotten gains. (SS)