I've reread the original post to jog my memory, and I really do think the core point where we differ is that whether one wants to call things "rights" or "freedoms". We're in agreement with restricting rights/freedoms from people who cannot or will not use them responsibly; the core problem lies with how the inevitable calls for expansion of the franchise are dealt with. The framing of various privileges as rights, like republicanism, inevitably leads to demotism; however, when framed as privileges, they can be rescinded much more easily in cases of abuse. Few would argue against a right to life and freedom, but then why do we put people in prison, if not the death penalty when they show they are unable to handle such freedoms without harming others?

Essentially put, it's frame control. "No, you cannot have a say in government because you're not of the aristocracy. Buy a land and title, marry an aristocrat's daughter, or perform some service to the king. Having a say in government is a freedom we accord you." as opposed to "You can't deny my RIGHT to vote!"

I don't expect us to see eye to eye on all issues, but as Aurini says, that's the beauty of the right – we don't need to warren it up like the rabbits.