@Anatelostaxus It is not necessary to counteract that which might jeopardize my survival. A severely strict pacifist would not do so, for instance, even if he had the legal right. So using “necessity” instead of “right” doesn’t particularly help.
As for only debating details, well yes. That’s all I was trying to do. But details are important, especially when they constitute what you yourself referred to as the answer to the original question.
Now, you seem to be confused by my use of the word “absolute.” In normative contexts like this, it means “admitting of no exception.” A statement like “no one has the right to deprive another individual of their life, thus their opportunities to evolve as an individual” is structured so as to admit no exception. But if there are exceptions, as we agree there are, then the statement is false.
As for my speed limit example, it is an specific case of the general principle you set forth in the second part of your answer. But since you put forth a general principle, no specific case should serve as a counterexample. If you do not like the case, then you will have to change, clarify, or somehow adjust the principle that lead to it. This was the purpose of my questions, which you failed to answer: I was looking for clarification. More details are needed before the second part of your answer can be fully assessed.
So here is the problem again. The second part of your answer says that countries—and democracies in particular—do not have the right to oblige people to act contrary to their intellects. The case I give is an instance in which it seems that countries have every right (insofar as we understand rights to be artificial creations) to create a law (which is something that obliges us) even if it is contrary to my intellect (for example, when I can find no rational defense for it and even think reason demonstrates that a higher speed limit would be better).
If you do not think my scenario contradicts your assertion about the rights of countries, then clarify where the two come apart. If the scenario does contradict your assertion, then show what is wrong with the scenario or abandon the assertion.