I think Raedwulf is having a bit of a misconception. A right and a privilege are the same thing. A right is a special case privilege. According to Meriam-Webster:

"something to which one has a just claim: as the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled *voting rights* *his right to decide*"

You state:

"A right is something we can have no matter what; it doesn't exist. A privilege is something that can (& should) be taken away if we stray too far beyond..."

That's not an accurate characterization. Under what circumstances should the right to vote or the right to speak be taken away? A right is a privilege to which a citizen has a just claim.

By "just" we mean that it has a basis in fact or reason or that it conforms to such.

By "claim" we mean "a right to something; specifically: a title to a debt, privilege, or other thing in the possession of another" that is, if you as a citizen are accorded this privilege then I as a citizen must also be accorded this privilege.

This privilege cannot be taken away from one part of the citizenry while another part is allowed to have it. Why? Because it is a right of all citizens, that is, all citizens have a just claim to this privilege. By the same token, a right cannot be taken away from all citizen because some have abused the privilege, e.g. voter fraud. such would violate a just claim.

So a right is not something you can have no matter what (?), it is a privilege based on a just claim and it certainly does exist.