The theory of Inalienable Rights stems from Enlightenment era philosophy and the postulation, of various writers of different viewpoints on the matter, that morality is objective and enshrines certain things in natural order. Thomas Hobbes, asserted this as the first of nature's laws in "Leviathan":
“ […] That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and all advantages of Warre. The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, to seek Peace and Follow it. The Second, the summe of the Right of Nature; which is, By all means we can, to defend ourselves.”
That is, that a man has a right to defend himself and that is nature's first right, whereas his first obligation is to seek peace.
That "might makes right" in this tradition in so far as that, whereas right may make what is -real-, it has no power to decide that which is -right-, nor the power to take away from a man anything, but through the cruelities of injustice. That is, natural law can be violated, but natural law still exists.
Now, you are of the opinion that a governmental entity can rob us of even this right, and in so far as clearly they can, you are right. But as to whether they'd be just in doing so, or whether we'd not still have a -right- which had simply been trod upon, is a matter all together different.
I postulate that indeed, a government is but an arbitrary entity, and cannot desginate what we can or cannot do, beyond our consent. It is only through superior force that a government can sway us to a different path, yes, but truly has no power to do anything to us if we do not give it the power, and if we do not care for our lives which it could threaten. In as much as this is so, we have rights, rights which we have made for ourselves, and which as all indeed have those rights but choose to push them away, are natural and engrained within our being.
A government can no more given an individual the right to do something, than an elephant can fly. It can only ignore what an individual is doing, or attempt to stop it, but never to say he can do such or he cannot, for he can do what he please, despite the consequences.