If you live in the US, then your rights are supposed to be inherent and inalienable.
The question then isn’t whether you have the rights, but whether someone is violating those rights (which you still possess) or you have “given them up” by violating the rights of another. In a narrow practical sense, this is equivalent to “those around you deciding what rights you have.”
In an ethical sense, it isn’t. If people believe rights stem from the group then the group is ethically fine in deciding you don’t have those rights and acting accordingly. If rights are inherent to the individual then while the group may still violate those rights, it both remains a violation and is not ethically sound. This difference makes it far easier in the former case for groups to violate the rights of individuals and other groups.
Then in a broader practical sense, these are not equivalent ideas. Encouraging the belief that rights are inherent is in the best interests of those who do not want those rights violated.
Even if a group of people decides that certain rights are inherent as opposed to just agreed upon in the group, you are still relying on this group of people agreeing on this. If you are the only one believing in some inherent rights, then what are those worth?
Ethics are defined by personal intersection of values.
Ethics of American and Greek will be different. Ethics of Christian and atheist will be different. Ethics of libertarian and conservative will be different. But then, what about libertarian atheist American for example? There might be thousands of axes, prioritized and changing during one’s life. How could any group create a shared ethics except a few obvious exceptions (theft, rape...)?
The question then isn’t whether you have the rights, but whether someone is violating those rights (which you still possess) or you have “given them up” by violating the rights of another. In a narrow practical sense, this is equivalent to “those around you deciding what rights you have.”
In an ethical sense, it isn’t. If people believe rights stem from the group then the group is ethically fine in deciding you don’t have those rights and acting accordingly. If rights are inherent to the individual then while the group may still violate those rights, it both remains a violation and is not ethically sound. This difference makes it far easier in the former case for groups to violate the rights of individuals and other groups.
Then in a broader practical sense, these are not equivalent ideas. Encouraging the belief that rights are inherent is in the best interests of those who do not want those rights violated.