I'm not even sure where to begin dissecting this. It looks like word salad. base don your name, I'll assume English is not your native language, and something may be lost in translation.

"Natural rights" are the sphere of our actions which do not infringe upon others as defined by life, liberty, and property acquired by homesteading of voluntary exchange. It is not opposed to nature, but rather is discovered by applying our natural faculty of reason. It is a concept of "negative rights," that is, reciprocal and universal definitions of trespass. Neither of us has authority to rob, murder, or otherwise initiate violence or coercion upon the other. Each of us has the natural authority to use proportionate self-defense against aggression.

It is precisely the point where violation occurs that a right must be invoked. The idea that rights are inviolable makes no sense.

Here is where the concept of "law" come into play. Legislation is either in accord with such concepts to protect life, liberty, and property; or it establishes a political class who claim the authority to violate those same rights as though they have some greater mystical right based on "divine right of kings," "popular mandates from the voter," or some other such myth.

Does that make sense?