The American Declaration of Independence (1776 CE) begins with the following:

The Declaration of Independence (1776 CE)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Here, rights are said to be intrinsic to man, being "endowed by their Creator", and are therefore considered "unalienable". This is a common basis for understanding rights - that they are possessed by people by virtue of their being a person, and all human beings come with a certain "base set" of rights. However, this is demonstrably untrue.

Rights as such are part of a social contract. The person stranded alone on a desert island has no need of rights. He is limited only by what he can or cannot do. There is no one to impose any limits on him, and he does not concern himself with imposing limits on others. A discussion of "rights" only begins when there is a social need or desire to restrict certain behaviors, because they are deemed to be potentially harmful to a society of people.

And, such rights are never "unalienable". They can be taken away under certain circumstances. Consider, for instance, the "unalienable" rights enumerated in the Declaration:

• Life - can and should be taken away in some cases, for instance, when someone poses an imminent lethal danger to others. Under some theories of justice, life can also be taken as part of retributive justice on someone for doing something heinous
• Liberty - someone's freedom could be restricted when they intend to do something harmful to others in a society, or have done things which prove they cannot handle freedom responsibly. Additionally, under some theories of justice, imprisonment or confinement is a legitimate punishment for crime
• The Pursuit of Happiness - can be severely restricted if one's "pursuit of happiness" includes doing harm to others in various ways - though malice, or carelessness, and so on

The Declaration's "unalienable" rights are not unalienable at all. And, they are not endowed by the Creator. Instead, they are negotiated limits on behavior, which enable a stable coexistence between people in a society. As humans, we agree to limits, and impose limits, so that we can reap the benefits of living in a society, and avoid constant conflict.

This having been established, how is an individual to view rights? In isolation, an individual would desire maximum autonomy - no restrictions whatsoever on their behavior beyond what they determine is best for themselves. This would be the greatest good from an individual's point of view.

However, once a person considers themselves in a context of a society - a society which they benefit from in a myriad of ways - it is easy for them to see the benefit to themselves in agreeing to limit their own behavior in certain ways in order to coexist with others, and remain part of the society. A society can be seen as a sort of covenant between a group to act with benevolence towards (or at least tolerate) others, united under a certain set of expectations. The more benevolent, intelligent, and cohesive the society, the less need there is for mandates which restrict freedoms, because its members naturally consider others, and so act considerately. In contrast, a low trust, or low cohesion society tends toward authoritarianism, as its members despise or are indifferent to each other, and each other's wellbeing.

Once a social contract is determined, naturally, the question of enforcement arises, and humanity's almost universal answer has been a "government", selected from amongst itself, tasked with maintaining the social contract. Tyranny is when this government begins to impose excessive restrictions on its populace which are not necessary for maintaining the mutual autonomy that the social contract is designed to protect, or uses its monopoly on violence to exploit its population, or a subset of its population.

A well-designed system of government has checks for preventing tyranny, or removing tyrannical leadership. Authoritarian systems often functionally do away with such checks, with disastrous consequences for those governed by them. Such a tyrannical authoritarian government poses to its populace one of the hardest questions for any human being living at any time - whether it is better for them and their constituents to live under the tyrannical system to the best of their ability, or attempt to overthrow it. Checks preventing tyranny are vital precisely because they prevent both the existence of these tyrannical systems, and the inevitable revolts once the intolerable threshold has been crossed, and the chaotic and often violent events which accompany them.

Conclusion

Determining the degree of someone's personal autonomy within a society is an interminable debate in every nation. Authoritarianism is the enemy of every person who values their own autonomy, and is often a result of a poorly designed system of government, and a low cohesion society. A high trust society, with strong checks against tyranny, creates the best environment for human flourishing, and maximal individual autonomy.