Yes. A group is a collection of individuals, and not a monolith. You’re describing the same attributes I have, but are saying that means it’s the the group that has the inherent rights. And I’m saying the inherent rights can only belong to individuals, not group’s.
It’s not overthinking. It seems pretty simple. A social construct, which a group is, isn’t alive, doesn’t have a single thought; it is the people who choose to associate together who think, perhaps even similarly, yet are diverse. That thing can’t have inherent rights. People have inherent rights. So maybe the source of the disagreement is in the definition of what is an inherent right.
You make this argument a lot. I see a group, whether a corporate or a political organization, as a complex component vector. Yes, each individual in the collective is pulling in his own direction driven by his wants and needs; but I don't need to pay that much attention to the component parts unless I want to interact with a particular individual on a personal basis
What is important is what is the direction of the component vector. In what direction is that organization trying to pull events? That decides my opinion of the organization; and no matter how much I may find certain individuals in that organization compelling, their freedom of movement is constrained by the aggregate vector and so it can be taken for granted that they will not or perhaps cannot deviate so very far from it.
You are in effect saying that each of the 2.6 trillion transistors in a Cor i7 are unique; I'm saying I can treat them as a unified whole because each individual is not unique enough to care about when discussing overarching issues
The map is not the territory, but too high a level of detail overwhelms any utility the map might have had as guidance. Abstraction for the win