Late to the party as ever, but:

It's definitely not a binary issue unless one chooses to make it so.

If rights are intrinsical to an individual and all have the same rights, and it is up to the individuals to uphold their rights vis-a-vis each other, then we have simply re-invented the law of the jungle. Anarcho-fascism.

If rights are conditional and provisional based on group and fulfilling obligations and duty to group, then they can also be called privileges (just to separate them from intrinsical rights); something earned awarded only upon proof. However, there's a very fast track from that simple principle straight into social credits and all the other dystopian conformism stuff.

If the state is given or has taken authority over you, then morally it has also assumed a corresponding - greater! - moral obligation to you to fulfill its duty based on whatever reason for its authority it has claimed. State taxes you? State owes you full value for the taxes claimed. But in reality, we know how that one plays out, eventually.

And any gathering of individuals needing or wanting to achieve something together is simply recreating the formation of the state: Leader(s), hangers-on, followers, enforcers, serfs, shamans, et cetera.

All of which is why it is much more bountiful to look at places and times where something worked well and try to figure out what the key components were that made something work well, and see if they can be applied/replicated in the present.

Which is much more difficult than any theoretical discussion about principles.